Subject: RE: [Raven] Vice Versa

From: Chris Savage <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:42:34 -0500

>-----Original Message-----
>From: chefren [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 11:12 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [Raven] Vice Versa
>
>
>On 28 Dec 99, at 10:46, Chris Savage wrote:
>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: chefren [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> >Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 10:28 AM
>> >To: [email-masked]
>> >Subject: Re: [Raven] Re: Raven, What's Needed...
>> >
>> <snip>
>> 
>> >I doubt that. Without an offer from the technical side laws 
>> >have no "base". We can't expect lawyers to say reasonable 
>> >things about technical things while they have no knowledge 
>> >about it.
>> 
>> And vice versa?
>
>Same. Unfortunately the techies here do say things about it.
>
>
>Seen from the other side everything is in place now:
>
>Tappability is required as it was with other technical 
>communication methods like snailmail, telephone, telex and 
>fax.

Actually, in the US, that's not quite right, as I have pointed out before.
Under CALEA, to the best of my knowledge, tappability is required of
"telecommunications carriers," a legally-defined class of entities that does
not include ISPs, Web hosters, and backbones acting as such.

>The lawyers have some experience with the first 
>technical offerings for Internet tappings and have 
>concluded that it's unacceptable to get information from 
>other persons/organisations than were they have a warrant 
>for.

It is certainly true that in the US LEAs are not supposed to get information
from either carriers or information service providers without following
various statutory and constitutionally-required steps.  To give a simple
example, if a LEA needs access to the papers in your locked desk at home,
they can (in the US) upon probable cause, etc., get a warrant to come into
your house, pry open your desk, and look at the papers.  Similarly, if a LEA
needs access to your emails, it can serve a warrant on your ISP and get
print-outs of your emails.

"Tapping," though -- by which I take you to mean basically real-time receipt
of ongoing communications -- is a different legal matter.  CALEA addresses
some of the issues relating to it.  But CALEA doesn't apply to ISPs (and
most other Internet-related entities), because they are information service
providers, not "telecommunications carriers."

So, like anyone else, an ISP or other Internet entity in the US has to
respond to warrants (court orders) to make information available.  But
CALEA, which relates to making certain capabilities "built in" to the
infrastructure of  telecommunications carriers, does not apply to ISPs.

I can imagine various practical/technical arguments that there is no "real"
difference between ISPs and entities classified as "telecommunications
carriers" in various contexts (though I will not try to assess their
validity here).  But this is (one place) where the lawyers and the engineers
may part company: here in the US, CALEA applies to "telecommunications
carriers," but not to "information service providers."  From a legal
perspective, therefore, it seems odd to me to suggest that these different
(statutory) classes of entities should be treated the same.

Chris S.

All views are my own.

*************************************************************************** 
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