IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 24 March 2017 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 C39FC12985B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 MplbqvwBi0ys for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFA82129862 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 190so9205664itm.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7QT2fx0NGhKYgxf4qw530Y7idwlaQ1ESvZwqsheEguc=; b=clQVQm8ymEDg1YgEilVe0rgO+VyhBJ82xv/lwtXsU4zrtKPoT+Ug6U7JpXzHNlI4Rr 9YSLCdRZEh2xsjQiahYeZPcKA8QvIxZl8NdHKfEBHn9sPrboEzr3HE80H8Xol16+tiwz NZ/baxJWmUrH8YyACJQ/UQuI3fWLvryWbgqDCeuD8pQadjGQWb7s6gK5qQC2yaUqHWZ6 yyiMMs0cABEgrH99We/VaGCogxhvlSZjGmadk4qdTASoEHe/OrvB5j4XjcDsG63PgRld CxgDpRlC4MYTBS031+Wqb2arHDFlqBMEK0J1bwqKvNBH2EP3U59b6po6rokuHH6wPS94 7XQw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7QT2fx0NGhKYgxf4qw530Y7idwlaQ1ESvZwqsheEguc=; b=PkDOfCOzB7bZDIR0SxiO7Ulkl9aArUNSDy3vUHYnorwjLQZhNV7q7qreGWS4iJSBcY sTVmD3LvOxgBsJ9I54Puj31SM3EY3C9/QUjPNl8UeeIEGe2VwHMZNkfNehJP/K641AO4 zGssTpSMC8LrLuXwpGDB4vos2eiS3hO5pb12SdZj61KEmTNqh8Dt/K4Ce1WajZ1qZRiP 5Qm1CW1KRmBtAN1Qvo/YzdzQDfLO4Zv6iq4zAbjl4OoeD0lCubiBONPIO6EFxGxfl7Vf MIsISwj3sc4p2oit/t238X/KmeOrIaIHHSb3Qwqe+hcXmAs/cr4RRX9toh1jEAiq6rVF n8zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2rAwlO6UuuASJMwaaerB29Bsqln2c81/Pjp2qSkLKsUZftLCn2r/Tuu69TUop4fw==
X-Received: by 10.107.24.193 with SMTP id 184mr10383374ioy.11.1490379244038; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.11.95] (50-76-68-137-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [50.76.68.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i18sm1285977itb.28.2017.03.24.11.14.03 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <149033560170.22298.4992160350083194861.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2k27eg61o.wl-randy@psg.com> <7B9DC018-C522-492C-824D-6643E32A146D@sobco.com> <m2h92ig4yv.wl-randy@psg.com> <33DAE0FB5054D5E9B195CFCA@PSB> <D85AC54E-71CA-4700-9AC2-2923E5DB705C@sobco.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <bbb02cb7-dd1b-3dfe-5bd9-a75f59606407@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 07:14:14 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D85AC54E-71CA-4700-9AC2-2923E5DB705C@sobco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vOc9Zm4z6ohMSUvqiHyqDBUTvMA>
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 18:14:10 -0000

On 25/03/2017 05:32, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 12:27 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>
>> IANAL either, but it seems to me that Jari's note suggests a
>> more basic question that is almost independent of jurisdictional
>> issues.  Suppose the IETF (or whomever) receives a subpoena that
>> names individuals or companies in a way that might be
>> unfortunate, contain implicit accusations that might be
>> completely unfounded,  or even, in the opinion of those parties
>> if they knew, were libelous, and suppose it directs IETF to not
>> disclose the subpoena in any way.  Without offering anything
>> resembling a legal opinion, it probably makes a difference
>> whether the subpoena is associated with a law enforcement action
>> rather than the civil actions for which I think the policies
>> were designed.
> 
> I know of no case of a civil subpoena that included a gag order

IANAL but there are those "superinjunctions" that sometimes allegedly
occur in English civil libel cases where even the existence of the
superinjunction is secret, under penalty of contempt of court. And
many countries do not have a generic right of free speech.

So, never say never :-(.

   Brian

> 
> & yes, the procedures were deigned for civil cases (like patent prior art)
> 
> Scott
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email