> This is not reflective of my experience. The details are tedious, but > RFC6302 in its current form, and even more so in the form proposed by > Dave, contains language reflective of objections to the law in my > jurisdiction as propagated by law enforcement officials. The irony of > that situation does not escape me, but neither does the gravity of the > risk that the IETF would aggravate the problem.
Also, what’s the problem with a position being put forward by law enforcement officials? Do you not think they have a valid perspective on crime attribution? You might not agree with it, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a point to be made. NOTE: anyone who cares to look at my linkedin profile, kindly provided by Amelia, will see that I am not a law enforcement official by the way. daveor > On 27 Apr 2018, at 10:15, Amelia Andersdotter <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2018-04-27 04:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 27/04/2018 09:09, Amelia Andersdotter wrote: >>> On 2018-04-26 17:41, Dave O'Reilly wrote: >>>> As I mentioned yesterday, I think you are misrepresenting the scope of the >>>> ECJ judgement. >>>> >>>> >>> what it boils down to is that the extensive, long-term logging side of >>> the argument lost (legally anyway). deal with it, instead of going >>> around lobbying SDOs. >> In Australia, deal with the fact the extensive, long-term logging side of >> the argument won** (long term = 2 years). If you're selling products, that >> means >> support logging and retention, with config options. > > The proposer of more mandatory logging recommendations appears to be > from my jurisdiction. Cf > https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-o-reilly-b373226/ One of his main > supporters in this e-mailing thread also appears to be working for a > company based in my jurisdiction. > > i would have been slightly less annoyed had this not been the case. For > this reason: > >> This is not an area where anybody in authority gives a fig about what >> the IETF says. > > This is not reflective of my experience. The details are tedious, but > RFC6302 in its current form, and even more so in the form proposed by > Dave, contains language reflective of objections to the law in my > jurisdiction as propagated by law enforcement officials. The irony of > that situation does not escape me, but neither does the gravity of the > risk that the IETF would aggravate the problem. > > It sits poorly with me, but a different way of solving it is simply > withdrawing RFC6302 all together. > > best, > > A > >> Brian >> >> ** >> https://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecurity/DataRetention/Pages/Frequentlyaskedquestions.aspx >> > > > -- > Amelia Andersdotter > Technical Consultant, Digital Programme > > ARTICLE19 > www.article19.org > > PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55 > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
