[105236] in Cypherpunks
Re: Response to Anonymous re: Zero-Knowledge Freedom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lucky Green)
Mon Nov 9 00:02:37 1998
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:36:49 +0100 (CET)
From: Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
To: Alex de Joode <usura@replay.com>
cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
In-Reply-To: <199811081325.OAA13192@replay.com>
Reply-To: Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
At this point in time, it is probably appropriate to recap a bit of Dutch
legislative history. Dutch law for a while now required communications
providers such as telcos to provide subscriber traffic dumps to LEA's upon
request. When asked to provide IP traffic logs about a particular
subscriber to Dutch law enforcement, XS4ALL.NL, namely Maurice, refused to
comply, claiming that the Dutch law was narrowly written to only cover
telcos, but not ISP's. The courts agreed with XS4ALL.NL's interpretation
of the law. Subsequently, the Dutch neo-fascist parliament amended the law
to include ISP's.
Under the law in force today, ISP's are compelled to provides LEA's with
full traffic dumps of any subscribers under investigation by LE. (The
exact requirements to start an investigation are somewhat hazy, suffice to
say investigations are for all intents and purposes at the discretion of
LE).
This unfortunate situation of course makes the Dutch prime candidates for
the deployment of Freedom servers. In the Netherlands, we see both a
culture of strong sentiment for individual privacy (not in the least
amonst some of the Dutch ISP's) and Reichstag-like legislation requiring
traffic dumps of "suspects". I say, let them have the encrypted traffic
dumps. :-)
--Lucky
On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Alex de Joode wrote:
>
> Anonymous,
>
> [..]
> : >FREEDOM servers in their home country (example: if terrible laws are
> : >passed like in the Netherlands requiring logging and storage of all
> : >packet info., etc.). In this manner, a local user in a restrictive
>
> I'm not aware of any law that requires "logging and storage of all
> packet info". (I presume you mean 'Wet Computercriminaliteit II' ?)
>
> There is a part that makes ISP liable if they cannot point to a
> 'user' but the law explicitly states that you have to be in
> the business of being an ISP, running a remailer is not my business,
> it is a 'not for profit' hobby, so it will be fun to see how "they"
> will 'manouvre' to bring that also under the law ...
>
> Anyways could you please sent me the relevant parts of this law that
> lead you think this way ?
>
> bEST Regards,
> --
> Alex de Joode | International CryptoRunners | http://www.replay.com
> 'A little paranoia can lengthen your life'
>
>
-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred.
