Dave, Your affiliation has nothing to do with this discussion.
We all are contributing as individuals. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Dave O'Reilly > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 11:31 > À : Amelia Andersdotter > Cc : [email protected] > Objet : Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in > Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies > > > 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/Frequentlyaskedque > stions.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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
