[56422] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UK ISPs not cooperating with law enforcement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Fri Mar 7 20:48:49 2003
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: "Mark Borchers" <mborchers@igillc.com>
Cc: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Mar 2003 18:04:07 CST."
<NFBBJLNCOLKBLIJLHFIGMEEECEAA.mborchers@igillc.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 20:47:41 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In message <NFBBJLNCOLKBLIJLHFIGMEEECEAA.mborchers@igillc.com>, "Mark Borchers"
writes:
>
>> It difficult to tell from the article whether UK ISPs are refusing to
>> cooperate with lawful requests from UK police, or if UK police are
>> trying to get ISPs to give information without proper authorization.
>>
>> http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119873
>
>It's difficult to argue with the premise that "it was in the interests of
>ISPs to co-operate in investigations against hackers and virus writers".
>
>I can recall posts to this list bemoaning the fact that the FBI was slow
>or unwilling to launch cybercrime investigations not tied espionage,
>terrorism, or other good, old-fashioned crime.
>
>
>
>
I haven't checked the law since the Patriot Act was passed. Prior to
that, however, in the U.S. the law *prohibited* communications carriers
from giving certain information to the government without a warrant --
but they were free to give it or sell it to anyone else.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2703.html see (c)(1)(A)
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
