[83198] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Sun Aug 7 07:07:08 2005
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 07:06:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <42F5552F.7020603@tony.li>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Tony Li wrote:
> I'm sorry, but this is simply an unsupportable statement. What is
> required of routers is that the provider be able to configure the device
> to make copies of certain packets to a monitoring port. Assuming that
> the monitoring port is duly managed, how does this qualify as "insecure"?
Unfortunately, things are never as simple as they appear. The department
of justice/fbi/dea/etc wish lists have been published/leaked with a
suitable google search. Port mirroring may not be considered sufficient.
I think the EFF is missing the important part of the wish list items. The
wish list items aren't for wiretaps, but defining as many things as
possible as "non-content." Its important for network operators because
they will end up doing a lot more work digging through packets for
non-content information, and important for lawyers because it lessens the
legal requirements for non-content information. What is the "expectation
of privacy" of non-content information?
