[96752] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP CALEA compliance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Albert Meyer)
Wed May 23 20:25:06 2007
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:23:42 -0500
From: Albert Meyer <from_nanog@corenap.com>
To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <2d106eb50705231604k579c2721v1a381859a56c15c9@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Martin Hannigan wrote:
> I had mentioned that both VeriSign and Neustar have people that are
> fluent in the
> technical and general legal issues as well as the legal aspects. It
> would seem to make more sense to solicit one of those organizations
> since NANOG is about operations, and not politics. The EFF is a
> political organization and these are not topics that make sense for
> NANOG, IMHO, the list, the program, or a BoF.
>
> Having the EFF explain CALEA at NANOG is like asking the Sierra Club
> to identify good
> sites for oil wells in forests.
I took a look at EFF's CALEA FAQ at
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/?f=faq.html and they appear to
have a pretty good handle on the technical issues. I can understand why VeriSign
would prefer to leave EFF's viewpoint out of any discussion of CALEA, but I
believe that VeriSign's perspective is just as political as EFF's. It's
reasonable to think that VeriSign might employ people with better technical
knowledge than EFF, but that doesn't mean that EFF's presentation would be less
valuable than VeriSign's. Given their respective viewpoints (protecting
individual rights and freedoms versus protecting corporate profits) maybe it
would make sense to hear from both. Were EFF entirely clueless regarding the
technical issues, I would agree that they should not be invited to NANOG, but
that appears to not be the case.
