RE: [Raven] Internet Draft comments

At 09:57 16.02.00 -0500, Ed Stone wrote:
>The draft is a good general document, in my view, but it should be judged 
>in light of how it will be applied. For example, if evaluated as a limited 
>technical document expressing a general policy, I think it serves that 
>purpose adequately. If evaluated as a clear, complete and unambiguous 
>statement that plugs all loopholes that government lawyers may want to 
>find in it by way of pointing to industry and user support for some kind 
>of intrusion, experience teaches us that any crevice will be so exploited.

Anyone who thinks you can get a loophole-free document that is also 
understandable either has not worked much with standards or laws, or worked 
too long with them. I think the former interpretation is the only sensible one.

>If the draft needs only to serve the former purpose, I think it is 
>sufficient, with one modification: the wiretapping definition should 
>include intercepts whether they are targeted or untargeted, whether 
>processed in realtime or stored for potential subsequent processing.

I don't believe we can do that without declaring traffic statistics as 
wiretaps. Or spending an extremely long time arguing about the borderline 
cases.

                 Harald

                        Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no

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