[43325] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Carnivore alternative
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hank Nussbacher)
Thu Oct 4 12:05:11 2001
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011004180114.00ad5b00@max.att.net.il>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:03:06 +0200
To: "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com>
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <009e01c14cd9$2759b810$ec0900c1@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 06:33 04/10/01 -0700, Eliot Lear wrote:
I just post links (occassionally) that may be of interest to NANOG. I
think the legalities and other nuances are best discussed by NAers and not
by MEers :-)
-Hank
>Hank,
>
>Indeed when the FBI visited with NANOG in Washington D.C., the guy
>stated pretty plainly that if you didn't want to use Carnivore you
>didn't have to. You merely needed to provide the information listed in
>the warrant. Now I'm not a provider, and I can't verify what he said,
>but that is what he said.
>
>On the other hand, what assurance is there that there is no trap door in
>NetWitness. What one might do is place filters on the port that
>connects such devices so as to limit the intercept to information that
>could be conceivably covered by the warrant. I've heard from some ISPs
>that they would rather the FBI not even tell them who the target is, for
>fear of the information leaking.
>
>Strange legal jungle we live in.
>
>Comments? (So, Ran, got both barrels loaded, yet? ;-)
>
>Eliot
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Hank Nussbacher" <hank@att.net.il>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 9:45 PM
>Subject: Carnivore alternative
>
>
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21992.html
> >
> > Hank
> >
