Subject: Re: [Raven] Executive Power

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:08:06 -0500

You wrote:

>This is just about talking, my link (see below) was about a
>resolution. That's taken and the countries have some time
>to implement it in their own laws. I truly know of no
>contra-resolution. And I'm sure the resolution is
>implemented in Dutch law.

I have not disputed your claim that this is Dutch law. I disputed the claim
that it was law in all of Europe. As you note, countries have time to
implement it. They generally haven't. As you did not note, the resolution is
not binding on the member states.

For reference, here's the resolution text:

1. The Council notes that the requirements of Member States to enable them
to conduct the lawful interception of telecommunications, annexed to this
Resolution ('the Requirements`), constitute an important summary of the
needs of the competent authorities for the technical implementation of
legally authorized interception in modern telecommunications systems.

2. The Council considers that the aforementioned Requirements should be
taken into account in the definition and implementation of measures which
may affect the legally authorized interception of telecommunications and
requests Member States to call upon the Ministers responsible for
telecommunications to support this view and to cooperate with the Ministers
responsible for Justice and Home Affairs with the aim of implementing the
Requirements in relation to network operators and service providers.

Note the phrase "should be taken into account" and the word "requests".
Non-binding. Not the law.

Many people, including ISP's, were pretty surprised by this when it finally
became public two years after it was passed. That's why the talking is still
going on.

I have some sympathy for your desire to be done with political discussions.
However, the primary question before the list is:

"should the IETF develop new protocols or modify existing protocols to
support mechanisms whose primary purpose is to support wiretapping or other
law enforcement activities"

which is a political and moral question, not a technical one. Of course much
discussion of technology is involved, since "can't" implies "shouldn't", but
the question is essentially political.

Richard Payne

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

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 21:53:56 +0100

> not binding on the member states.

Probably most of them have not implemented it YET and the 
resolution IS binding to the member states.

> Non-binding. Not the law.

I know what you mean but that's not practice and thus 
reality. The theory goes: EU does not make laws, it only 
makes requirements. However, those requirements are binding.

> became public two years after it was passed. That's why the talking is still

And still now only a few of them really understand what's 
happening. One of the reasons is the confusion described 
above.
 
> the question is essentially political.

Since IETF is a non political organization and doesn't want 
to be one it can only react in a non-politcal way. Agree?

I have understood from the postings of the chairman in this 
list that the problem is even more heated than I thought.

What I know for sure is that there are (respectable) 
countries that require all communication to be tapable.

My simple solution: Auditable tapping protocol and sealed 
tapbox is always needed for doing a tap that has to be used 
in a serious court. (Agree?)

However it seems governments of, to be respected, countries 
will not further accept free use of strong encryption. I 
always knew that would be the next point but never thought 
it would be so close as I think now.

So most probably for example "IPSEC" won't be allowed in 
the =near= future. In that regulated-encryption world IETF 
can only produce protocols that do obey the laws of 
respected countries.

+++chefren