To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: IP: "Intercepting the Internet" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Caspar Bowden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Dave Farber (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/The_Paper/Weekly/Story/0,3605,45981,00.html >Intercepting the Internet > >A secret international organisation is pushing through law to bring in >eavesdropping points for websites and other forms of digital communication. >Duncan Campbell reports > >Thursday April 29, 1999 > >European commission documents obtained this week reveal plans to require >manufacturers and operators to build in "interception interfaces" to the >Internet and all future digital communications systems. The plans, drafted >by a US-led international organisation of police and security agencies, will >be proposed to EU Justice and Home Affairs ministers at the end of May. They >appear in Enfopol 19, a restricted document leaked to the London-based >Foundation for Information Policy Research >(http://www.fipr.org/polarch/index.html) > >. The plans require the installation of a network of tapping centres >throughout Europe, operating almost instantly across all national >boundaries, providing access to every kind of communications including the >net and satellites. A German tapping centre could intercept Internet >messages in Britain, or a British detective could listen to Dutch phone >calls. There could even be several tapping centres listening in at once. > >Enfopol 19 was agreed by an EU police working party a month ago. It was >condemned last week by the civil liberties committee of the European >Parliament. But the European Parliament will shortly dissolve to face >elections in June. Meanwhile, EU ministers are preparing to adopt a >convention on Mutual Legal Assistance, including international interception >arrangements. > >If the Enfopol 19 proposals are enacted, internet service providers (ISPs) >as well as telecommunications network operators face having to install >monitoring equipment or software in their premises in a high security zone. > >Ministers were told two months ago that an international committee of >experts regarded new European policy on tapping the internet "as an urgent >necessity". But they will not be told that the policy has been formulated at >hitherto secret meetings of an organisation founded by the FBI. Known as the >International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar (Ilets), police and >security agents from up to 20 countries including Hong Kong, Canada, >Australia and New Zealand have been meeting regularly for seven years. > >The Ilets group was founded by the FBI in 1993 after repeatedly failing to >persuade the US Congress to pass a new law requiring manufacturers and >operators to build in a national tapping network, free of charge. Since >then, Ilets has succeeded in having its plans adopted as EU policy and >enacted into national legislation in a growing number of countries. > >The group first met at the FBI research and training centre in Quantico, >Virginia, in 1993. The next year, they met in Bonn and agreed a document >called the International Requirements For Interception, or IUR 1.0. Within >two years, the IUR "requirements" had, unacknowledged and word for word, >become the secret official policy of the EU. They became law in the United >States. > >In June 1997, the Australian government succeeded in getting the >International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to adopt the IUR requirements >as a "priority". It told the ITU that "some countries are in urgent need of >results in this area". Ilets and its experts met again in Dublin, Rome, >Vienna and Madrid in 1997 and 1998, and drew up new "requirements" to >intercept the Internet. Enfopol 19 is the result. > >Linx, the London Internet Exchange, is the hub of British Internet >ommunications. According to Keith Mitchell, chairman of Linx: "Anything >along the lines of the Enfopol scheme would probably have astronomical cost >implications. In the event such a scheme was ever implementable, the costs >should be met by the enforcement authorities. Since the industry cannot >afford it, I doubt the public sector could "This kind of monitoring approach >is based on a world view of telecomms operators which is both technically >and economically outdated." ------- End of Forwarded Message
