RE: [Raven] Comments on Draft -- Take 2

On 5 Feb 00, at 12:56, Lyal Collins wrote:

> I'm not entirely comfortable with the summary position, which focusses
> heavily on national laws.
> While national laws have one level of impact on wiretapping, the global
> nature of the Internet means it is no more costly (and probably more
> convenient) for a LE agency in one jurisdiction to monitor communications in
> an external jurisdiction.
> 
> As one example, this may free LE from the burden of having to comply with
> local jurisdiction approval/warrant processes by tapping communications with
> "out-of-jurisdiction" entities, who may or may not be invovled in
> inappropriate activities.
> 
> Think "LAPD-style wiretapping" in every state/country, not just a single
> city.
> 
> Is the resulting assumption, that IETF does not see itself having a global
> role in this matter, true?
> 
> If so, is there an indication of how many countries will need to have a
> "common" requirement for tapping before IETF acts further in this area (in
> either the pro- or anti- directions)?
> 
> And, have we a definitive count of such countries?
> There are at least 4 I can think of (US, Holland, Australia and China spring
> to mind).

I have heard Germany allows tapping too but no confirmation 
yet. We definitely have to little current information. I 
have tried at least 5 times to get information about it 
from the EU.

I estimate that this list will not choose to change 
protocols even if all countries in this world require 
Internet tapping.

Majority prefers to wait until some of their standards are 
forbidden by law and replaced by ad-hoc mouse/camel-like 
designs that have nothing to do with the good intentions 
IETF certainly has.

+++chefren

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
raven@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven