[98257] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Routing public traffic across county boundaries in Europe
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arien Vijn)
Fri Jul 27 06:35:10 2007
In-Reply-To: <20070727041435.GA9362@capsaicin.mamane.lu>
From: Arien Vijn <arien+nanog@ams-ix.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:33:46 +0200
To: Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu>, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jul 27, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[...]
> (And I've repeatedly heard that in the Netherlands, for some time
> in the past at
> least, the way the ISPs got rid of the lawful intercept obligation was
> to have the AMS-IX send a copy of *all* the traffic to the government
> black box. Not that they had to do that, but it was the easiest /
> cheapest way.)
[...]
That is complete and utter nonsens. That never ever happend.
As everybody can see in the public member list [1] on the AMS-IX
website, the Dutch police (AS16147) is connected via 100Mbit/s port.
They are just another member, nothing more nothing less.
Encrypted and signed tapped traffic from lawful interceptions may be
send from the Dutch ISPs to the police via peering. That traffic may
go over AMS-IX indeed. The Dutch ISP are obligated to apply these
taps on *access-lines* after some form of legal order. They have to
have the the right procedures and equipment to do that (at their own
costs) [2].
-- Arien
--
Arien Vijn
Amsterdam Internet Exchange
[1] http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/?expanded=1
[2] (In Dutch) http://www.agentschap-telecom.nl/informatie/aftappen/
paginas/faq.html
