[Raven] Comments on Draft--Take 2A

Chris Savage <chris.savage@crblaw.com> Fri, 04 February 2000 21:39 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10974 for <raven-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:39:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA13139; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:28:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA13111 for <raven@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:28:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from crbexch.crblaw.com (webaccess.crblaw.com [216.88.51.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10703 for <raven@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:29:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: by webaccess.crblaw.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <12368GKY>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:34:51 -0500
Message-ID: <D1A6C6C41B4CD311965D00C04F2C8D514526E4@webaccess.crblaw.com>
From: Chris Savage <chris.savage@crblaw.com>
To: "IETF Wiretapping List (E-mail)" <raven@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 16:34:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [Raven] Comments on Draft--Take 2A
Sender: raven-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: raven-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Raven Discussion List <raven.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: raven@ietf.org

My only comment on all of Section 2 had to do with the second paragraph,
which I would revise fairly substantially.

My gut reaction was that the overall point was well taken, but that it made
the telecom industry seem to be a bit more like mere tools of the LEAs than
is actually the case.  Those in the US will note that the telecom industry
and the LEAs battled for years over what to do to implement CALEA, with the
LEAs not getting some fairly significant things they wanted.

I think that telecom companies have generally viewed cooperating with LEAs
to be part of their civic duty (easy in non-US countries where the telco is
often part of the government).  Even so, at least in the US, telcos have
recognized their privacy obligations as well.

All of this by way of an apologetic for a fairly significant, and maybe even
"substantive," revision:

2. The Raven process

. . .

[[[Replace this:]]]

In the telephony world, there has been a tradition that companies that build
telephone equipment add wiretapping features to their telephony-related
equipment, and some traditional telephony standards organizations have
supported this by adding intercept features to their telephony-related
standards.

[[[With this:]]]

In the telephony world, a long tradition of cooperation between law
enforcement and companies that build and operate telephone equipment has led
to a broad consensus surrounding the features of such equipment, and its
operating characteristics, that are and should be used to facilitate and
enable wiretapping. It is therefore not surprising that some traditional
telephony standards organizations have supported wiretapping, pursuant to
various national legal regimes, by adding wiretap-related features to their
telephony standards.

Chris S.
All views/opinions 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
raven@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven