[145922] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Obama administration revives Draconian communications intercept
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josh Rubin)
Wed Sep 29 23:38:32 2010
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:41:37 -0400
From: Josh Rubin <jlrubin@gmail.com>
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
CC: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
In-Reply-To: <87d3ryl8rn.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
On 9/28/2010 1:47 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that
>> enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like
>> BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software
>> that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be
>> technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The
>> mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble
>> encrypted messages.
> Isn't this just a clarification of existing CALEA practice?
>
> In most jurisdictions, if a communications services provider is served
> an order to make available communications, it is required by law to
> provide it in the clear. Anything else doesn't make sense, does it?
> Service providers generally acknowledge this (including Research In
> Motion, so I don't get why they are singled out in the article).
>
> <SNIP>
This post from the IETF Wiretapping list [RAVEN] from October, 1999
may be relevant to the discussion.
Should Tin Cans and String comply with CALEA?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/raven/current/msg00007.html
The question has special significance to me as proprietor of
tincansandstring.net
--
Josh Rubin
jlrubin@tincansandstring.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
