On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:44 AM, S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Pranesh, > At 18:05 26-02-2014, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >> But to insist that some Asian countries (namely China, via Huawei, ZTE, >> etc.) do it while others like USA and Sweden don't is naive at best and >> duplicitous propaganda at worst: > > To avoid any doubt about conflict of interest I'll mention that I do not work > for Cisco. I am okay with any questions about that. I prefer to answer them > on [email protected]. > > Appendix C of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-traffic-peeking-01 > discusses about lawful interception. There is a sentence about the IETF > perspective about the publication of RFC 3924. There was a message from Fred > Baker about why he wrote the RFC. I don't recall the reference for that as > it has been a while since I looked into it. I can probably find the > reference if it is really important. > > There are multiple aspects to the text quoted above (and the link in that > message). I did an (internal) analysis to try and understand the issues. I > would describe them as tackling an impossible task. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > _______________________________________________ > ietf-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy I'm having some problems deciphering this conversation, and the traffic-peeking draft. What is being alleged, and by whom? I do work for Cisco. Between appendices B and C, I'm not sure I know the difference between "wiretap" and "lawful intercept", which is now more properly referred to "lawfully authorized electronic surveillance". If you want to know what we wrote RFC 3924, it was because RFC 2804 asked us to. If you want to know why we implemented an intercept solution, it's because our customers were required by law to deploy one, and we're their vendor. If you want to know why I got involved, it's because Johann Bakker, who at the time was holding the pen on the ETSI specification, told me that it was pushing a model in which every fiber was split and one end shoved under the intelligence service's door, which could then take what it liked. I wanted there to be a warrant before the interception took place, which is consistent with US law, and I wanted audit trails. Getting them meant I needed to be involved. And the point of all of this is...?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
