Chris, Your suggestions and references have been implemented. Thank you!
NK On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Christopher Soghoian <[email protected]>wrote: > I think your section on law enforcement stuff could still use some work. > > I really think you should get rid of some of the text in the references. > Specifically, delete this text: "As a result of the service being acquired > by Microsoft in 2011, it may now be required to comply with CALEA due to > the company being headquartered in Redmond, Washington. Furthermore, as a > US-based communication provider, Skype would therefore be required to > comply with the secretive practice of National Security Letters.[3]" > > IMHO, it isn't the HQ in Redmond that raises CALEA questions, but rather, > the interconnection to the US telecommunications network. If Skype has to > be CALEA complaint, those requirements kicked in long before Microsoft > owned them, > > Thus, Instead of: > > Skype’s current interpretation of the applicability of the Communications > Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), National Security Letters > (NSLs), and other "lawful intercept" policies to its users’ communications > in the countries in which Skype is used. > > > What about instead: > > Skype's interpretation of its responsibilities under the Communications > Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) [1], its policies related to the > disclosure of call metadata in response to subpoenas and National Security > Letters (NSLs) [FN2], and more generally, the policies followed when Skype > receives and responds to requests for user data from law enforcement and > intelligence agencies in the United States and elsewhere. > > > [FN1] In May 2006, the FCC issued a Second Report and Order that required > facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of > interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to come into > compliance with CALEA obligations no later than May 14, 2007. See: > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf > > [FN2] Existing US law surveillance law is unclear regarding the specific > form of legal process required for law enforcement agencies to compel the > production of metadata associated with Internet based text messaging > services. See > http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/us-surveillance-law-may-poorly-protect-new-text > . > > ---- > > > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech >
-- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
