Subject: RE: [Raven] Re: Raven, What's Needed...

From: Chris Savage <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:44:11 -0500

>We don't automate trials to make them more efficient, less 
>time-consuming, less expensive, less frustrating, less
>aggravating, easier, or quicker. For good reason. Generally,
>the police are very unhappy with the "inefficiency" 
>of trials.  Should the police view of "efficiency" guide our
>judicial structures and processes, as well, or only surveillance 
>issues? Why do you draw the line there?

As to law enforcement efficiency, one is of course reminded of the saying
that in Heaven the British are the police, the Germans are the civil
servants, and the French are the cooks, whereas in Hell the Germans are the
police, the French are the civil servants, and the British are the cooks.
<g>.

I won't venture into political questions here (beyond the above), but
someone suggested that an actual legal analysis of some points might be
useful.  ISTM that there are the following questions (at least):

1.  What countries' laws require equipment manufacturers/users to support
tapping (beyond honoring any standard warrant that could say, e.g., "let LEA
connect X equipment (bought by LEA) to Y equipment (owned by subject of
warrant) for Z period of time")?

2.  There should be some combined legal/technical analysis of what the laws
actually require of manufacturers/users, to look for common threads.  If 17
different countries "require" 15 different (possibly incompatible) things,
then whatever the solution might be, it isn't a "standard" developed by IETF
or anyone else.  It is (probably) country-specific devices.  A pain but not
unheard of.  For instance, in the US California-specific auto emission
requirements are well known.  If this is the case, IETF would seem to have
little to do.

3.  A review of whether the relevant laws apply to "the Internet" or devices
that support the Internet, or instead to something else.  The legal
classification of the Internet and 'net-related entities is somewhat subtle
and variable.  If all/most of the relevant laws don't actually apply to the
Internet, then again IETF would seem to have little to do.

4.  If the laws of some substantial number of countries (market-weighted
somehow, I would imagine: 30 countries with combined annual router sales of
12 units have to count less than 1 major developed economy with device sales
in the thousands or hundreds of thousands of units) seem to require the
same/similar things of Internet entities, then, and only then, ISTM, do the
questions that have been the recent focus here have relevance.

Now, lawyers generally do work for clients.  I don't know that the "IETF" is
a sufficiently corporate entity to actually be a "client," although other
Internet-associated groups not only no doubt are, but probably already have
their own counsel.

I would note, by the way, that actually doing 1, 2, and 3 above is a *lot*
of legal work.  Maybe some international collaboration could do it a bit at
a time for free/reduced rates, but ISTM that part of the inherent need to be
filled is an understanding/harmonization of different laws from different
countries, implying that some set of lawyers (maybe a set of one) has to
comprehend the whole.  Who pays for this?

All the political debating back and forth is great, but it seems to me to be
taking place in the absence of relevant legal input.

All opinions/views are mine.

Christopher W. Savage, Cole, Raywid & Braverman, L.L.P.
1919 Penn. Ave. N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006
voice: 202-828-9811 e-fax: 703-991-1470  fax: 202-452-0067	

*************************************************************************** 
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or 
privileged information.  If you believe that you have received the 
message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission 
and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. 
***************************************************************************

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:25:01 +0100

> warrant) for Z period of time")?

For example EU countries and Australia.
 
> requirements are well known.  If this is the case, IETF would seem to have

The general problem is that law-enforcement agencies don't 
accept "tcpdump" taps, they only want communication data 
that they have a warrant for.  

> and variable.

Laws demand tappable networks from communication providers, 
they don't state how it should be done.

> If all/most of the relevant laws don't actually apply to
> the Internet, then again IETF would seem to have little
> to do. 

There are many IETF standards that aren't used by a 
majority of the consumers...

> questions that have been the recent focus here have relevance.

IETF is no political nor a commercial organization. If an 
Internet standard is needed IETF "should" supply it. If 
they didn't serve the needed standards unevitably another 
body will emerge and IETF will be used less and less for 
Internet standards.

> Internet-associated groups not only no doubt are, but probably already have

As far as I know the IETF can definitely not be "sued" 
because they don't supply a standard.

..

> taking place in the absence of relevant legal input.

Follow the EU and Australian links and read...

+++chefren