Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request
Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 24 March 2017 19:45 UTC
Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C24A129477 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B3WBhCqmulLL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F4591270A3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B021406B23; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=TGzUnja5NY+PTv SpQkLweuovWTI=; b=KJz0EU4grxIE+fP09LHjkiYuEiM/NoBIrgd0vtC2ghyAJs dBfMYEtJDcPTAuur3fR5EFuSaXrR6YFPvbKehTHcTvHdKPzi70TEaKR7wi6VjnUl wgG7r5zhwkggY96Oq+KixnZdzTiNo3/jTi/64kATh8KfTSKWYMpYv6+SWnqHw=
Received: from localhost (cpe-70-123-158-140.austin.res.rr.com [70.123.158.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CD6D1406B05; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:45:29 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request
Message-ID: <20170324194528.GD7490@localhost>
References: <149033560170.22298.4992160350083194861.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FB90DAC1-5822-4A33-9A06-C07B61CA9847@qti.qualcomm.com> <25630.1490382918@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <25630.1490382918@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kxCn5UWtN0BQIGACvB10JyD1VfA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:45:36 -0000
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 03:15:18PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: > > To deal with the second issue, it seems to me that we should address > > the first issue by making it crystal clear in the procedures that the > > subpoena must go to the entire IESG, not just the chair, and that > > whatever action is taken on the subpoena be approved by the IESG (with > > advice of counsel). If the entire IESG gets a copy of the subpoena, and > > our procedures make it clear to any court or other issuing authority > > that more than one person outside of their jurisdiction will be seeing > > the subpoena, perhaps that will mitigate the second issue. > > Is your goal here to dissuade them from placing gag orders on the subpeona, > or is it to make it clear that their subpoena should omit unnecessary > identifying information, as we will post it publically. The latter is certainly not going to work out where the identifying information is necessary to fulfilling the subpoena. Intent to publish might disuade civil parties from pressing subpoenas, but not law enforcement agencies. The former is unlikely to succeed as to LEAs. I cannot imagine a private organization by-law that could disuade a LEA from pressing a subpoena on that party when that LEA has access to friendly courts (they always do). I agree that the IESG should get a copy as a matter of course, but as the legal entity to which the subpoenas are and will be served to is ISOC, the IESG and IETF may not get much say as to that. It's hardly as though ISOC might risk incurring criminal liability in order to abide by our rules. On the other hand, ISOC might be more inclined to fight a gag order that requires it not inform even the IESG, than to fight a gag order that allows it to inform the IESG. In any case, I'm surprised to see nothing about a warrant canary yet in this thread. (Though even those might not work legally in some jurisdictions. ISOC is vulnerable to rubber hoses.) Lastly, I agree that where it is clear that a subpoena relates to a criminal investigation, as opposed to a civil matter, the subpoena should not be published as-is, at least not without the approval of the targets named in it or extraordinary action by ISOC/IESG where they think the public's interest is much stronger than the targets'. Any redaction by the ISOC/IESG in such cases would presumably be at the request of the targets, thus the targets might be the ones proposing redactions (which, ISOC/IESG might reject). I suppose the relevant distinguishing characteristic is: who pressed the subpoena, an LEA or a non-LEA. Nico --
- IETF subpoena processes update and a request IETF Chair
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Angela
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Randy Bush
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Scott Bradner
- RE: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Michael Cameron
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Scott Bradner
- RE: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Michael Cameron
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Randy Bush
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Scott Bradner
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request John C Klensin
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Scott O. Bradner
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Pete Resnick
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request John Levine
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Pete Resnick
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Nico Williams
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Pete Resnick
- IAOC membership (was: Re: IETF subpoena processes… Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Joe Touch
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request John R Levine
- Re: RTBF, was IETF subpoena processes update and … John Levine
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Pete Resnick
- Re: RTBF, was IETF subpoena processes update and … Joe Touch
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Pete Resnick
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request John C Klensin