FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
Sean Donelan
sean at donelan.com
Sun Aug 7 11:06:33 UTC 2005
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?
More information about the NANOG
mailing list