On 24 May 2007, at 06:01, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Fully agree. But there's a bit more "system" about what's going on in
the EU, and stronger privacy safeguards. The Council of Europe
convention on cybercrime should be a good starting point, as should at
least some of the presos here:
On 5/24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The ITU itself is likely irrelevant. However, those who run ISPs across
either the left or right puddle are likely to be hit with CALEA-like issues
within the next few years, when their countries adopt similar laws. And those
who think t
On Thu, 24 May 2007 09:01:26 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
>
> On 5/24/07, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The more I think about this, the more I think a refereed
> > boxing^h^h^h^h^h^hpanel discussion between representatives
> > from DHS, FBI, EFF, FCC, Verisign, Neustar, and IT
On 5/24/07, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The more I think about this, the more I think a refereed
boxing^h^h^h^h^h^hpanel discussion between representatives
from DHS, FBI, EFF, FCC, Verisign, Neustar, and ITU might
be a good approach to this.
Humor me.. but just where does ITU come i
The more I think about this, the more I think a refereed
boxing^h^h^h^h^h^hpanel discussion between representatives
from DHS, FBI, EFF, FCC, Verisign, Neustar, and ITU might
be a good approach to this.
Owen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Martin Hannigan wrote:
I had mentioned that both VeriSign and Neustar have people that are
fluent in the
technical and general legal issues as well as the legal aspects. It
would seem to make more sense to solicit one of those organizations
since NANOG is about operations, and not politics. The
> Having the EFF explain CALEA at NANOG is like asking the Sierra Club
> to identify good sites for oil wells in forests.
well, we have had the oil companies multiple times.
randy
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 10:43:15PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
[snip]
> Too bad the PC hasn't solicited a talk in this area. They ought to.
Too bad that the collective-we choose to beat up the PC for not
providing agenda information in advance, and then change tack
to beat them up when the in
Steve Bellovin said:
I've tried hard to keep this discussion factual, with copious
references. But I think I've run out of things to say that are even
vaguely on-topic, so I'll shut up.
Anytime the word CALEA is pops up here the threads tend to quickly
degenerate into a large demonstration of
William Allen Simpson wrote:
Also, the gag order was ruled unconstitutional, so always inform your
customer! They may be willing to work out attorney fees, and/or join
you in a suppression hearing.
Huh? You can tell a customer that you've had a CALEA subpoena served on
you for his/her/it's
10 matches
Mail list logo
