North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: S.2281 Hearing (was: Justice Dept: Wiretaps...)
At 8:04 AM -0700 6/21/04, Owen DeLong wrote: >John, > > While I agree that not many domestic (or EU) vendors will offer services >contrary to the law in this area, do you truly believe this won't simply cause >companies that really want to make money in this market to move to places where >the laws are less difficult? Afterall, I can get pretty good fiber connectivity >in Malaysia or other parts of Asia/SoPac without really needing to worry much about >any sort of LI procedures. As long as the company offering the services does so >via a web site and can collect on credit card billings (even if they have to keep >rotating shell companies that do the billings), money can be made without dealing >with US regulations. With respect to enforcement, I am sure there are ways to prevent being caught involving amusing offshore logistics, but that will still prevent the vast majority of US businesses from offering non-2281 compliant services. > Frankly, the harder DOJ works on pushing this LI crap down our throats, the >more damage they will do to US internet industry and consequently the more job-loss >they will create. Terrorists that are sophisticated enough to be a real threat >already know how to: > > 1. Cope with lawful intercept through disinformation and other tactics. > 2. Encrypt the communications (voice or otherwise) that they don't want > intercepted -- It's just not that hard any more. > > I think the only advantage to DOJ working this hard on LI capabilities is that >it may raise public awareness of the issue, and, may help get better cryptographic >technologies more widely deployed sooner. Other than that, I think it's just a lose >all the way around. I'm not advocating the DoJ's position on this matter, just trying to clarify it for the list (since it was rather muddled in earlier postings). /John
|