On Nov 5, 2013 7:17 PM, "Nicholas Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 5, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Dean Willis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Wrong. See, the GCHQ has been surveilling US citizens using taps, and the NSA has been surveilling UK citizens using taps. Both are allowed to use covert mechanisms to surveil foreigners. Then they trade data sets with each other. > > > > This is state surveillance, but since it’s quite reasonably “illegal”, it also requires secrecy. Securing the transit links such that a “legal order” is required would significantly impact the interception. > > Except that its clear that they already HAVE gotten "legal" orders for such surveillance. E.g. AT&T secret room, GCHQ's deal with Level 3, etc... >
There are basically two classes of surveillance that require distinct analysis: 1) Surveillance that requires collaboration by service providers, generally through a "legal" framework of compulsion or a less qualified process of human subversion. Overt, mostly. Typically used within the legal domain of a state actor or enterprise. 2) Surveillance that can occur without the knowledge or support of the provider. Illegal within the US, typically launched from outside the domain of a state actor or enterprise.
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
