- From: Anil Sharma <asharma@sandvine.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 05:29:12 +0000
- To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
As the internet becomes the primary mode of information exchange, there would be requirements to monitor this mode of communication. I would read following from the same RFC before taking any position on this issue "On the other hand, the IETF believes that mechanisms designed to facilitate or enable wiretapping, or methods of using other facilities for such purposes, should be openly described, so as to ensure the maximum review of the mechanisms and ensure that they adhere as closely as possible to their design constraints. The IETF believes that the publication of such mechanisms, and the publication of known weaknesses in such mechanisms, is a Good Thing. 2. The Raven process The issue of the IETF doing work on legal intercept technologies came up as a byproduct of the extensive work that the IETF is now doing in the area if IP-based telephony. In the telephony world, there has been a tradition of cooperation (often mandated by law) between law enforcement agencies and telephone equipment operators on wiretapping, leading to companies that build telephone equipment adding wiretapping features to their telephony-related equipment, and an emerging consensus in the industry of how to build and manage such features. Some traditional telephony standards organizations have supported this by adding intercept features to their telephony-related standards. Since the future of the telephone seems to be intertwined with the Internet it is inevitable that the primary Internet standards organization would be faced with the issue sooner or later" Also after reading this section from the same RFC, I think you would review your statement again: " Why the IETF does not take a moral position Much of the debate about wiretapping has centered around the question of whether wiretapping is morally evil, no matter who does it, necessary in any civilized society, or an effective tool for catching criminals that has been abused in the past and will be abused again. The IETF has decided not to take a position in this matter, since: - There is no clear consensus around a single position in the IETF. - There is no means of detecting the morality of an act "on the wire". Since the IETF deals with protocol standardization, not protocol deployment, it is not in a position to dictate that its product is only used in moral or legal ways." Best, Anil -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:03 AM To: Anil Sharma Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: Benjamin Carlyle http 2.0 expression of interest On 07/22/2012 07:36 PM, Anil Sharma wrote: > I think there are cases in which authorities should be allowed to inspect and intercept if they have sufficient reasons to do so. See RFC 2804, already quoted recently on this list by Ted. If you would like to try change that feel free, but that IETF consensus conflicts with your statement above and is not something for this wg to try change I reckon. S.
Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 05:31:39 UTC