Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 2018-04-24 17:44, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Apr 24, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Dave O'Reilly > wrote: >> Could you give me an example of when you think it would be >> appropriate to log source port and when it would not be? > > It's not appropriate to log source

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 25/04/2018 00:49, Dave O'Reilly wrote: > Amelia, > > I have read this draft now and, once again, it seems there has been no > consideration of the implications for law enforcement of these > recommendations. A further example of the "privacy is good, more privacy is > better" philosophy. >

Re: [Int-area] draft-andersdotter (was RE: WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 25/04/2018 11:37, Ted Lemon wrote: > Brian, does the server *have* to collect everything? Clearly not, but operations people are much more likely to apply a "log everything we can store" approach than to be selective in advance. I think it's privacy law, not IETF BCPs, that will make them

Re: [Int-area] draft-andersdotter (was RE: WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On Apr 24, 2018, at 7:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Clearly not, but operations people are much more likely to apply a "log > everything we can store" approach than to be selective in advance. I think > it's privacy law, not IETF BCPs, that will make them think

Re: [Int-area] draft-andersdotter (was RE: WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 2018-04-25 00:26, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 24/04/2018 18:08, Amelia Andersdotter wrote: >> Dear Mohamed, >> >> See below: >> >> On 2018-04-24 07:25, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >>> [Med] I don't have a problem with the general intent of your text, my >>> concern is that you link

Re: [Int-area] draft-andersdotter (was RE: WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 24/04/2018 18:08, Amelia Andersdotter wrote: > Dear Mohamed, > > See below: > > On 2018-04-24 07:25, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >> >> [Med] I don't have a problem with the general intent of your text, my >> concern is that you link those explicitly with RFC6302 which is misleading.

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 25/04/2018 01:25, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Apr 24, 2018, at 9:11 AM, > wrote: >> What sort of trade-offs can be added to Dave’s document? Do you have in mind >> something like: >> (1) >> -Warranting that logging may be misused for

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On Apr 24, 2018, at 6:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I have trouble with that. When a user complains that "my transaction at 23:59 > UTC > yesterday failed", it's too late to switch on logging. So I think in > practice, logging > for problem debugging needs to

Re: [Int-area] draft-andersdotter (was RE: WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 2018-04-25 03:22, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Apr 24, 2018, at 7:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter > > wrote: >> Clearly not, but operations people are much more likely to apply a "log >> everything we can store" approach than to be selective in

Re: [Int-area] draft-andersdotter (was RE: WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

Re-, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Amelia Andersdotter [mailto:ame...@article19.org] > Envoyé : mardi 24 avril 2018 08:09 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; int-area@ietf.org > Cc : Stephen Farrell > Objet : Re: draft-andersdotter (was RE: [Int-area] WG

Re: [Int-area] draft-andersdotter (was RE: WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

Dear Mohamed, See below: On 2018-04-24 07:25, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > [Med] I don't have a problem with the general intent of your text, my concern > is that you link those explicitly with RFC6302 which is misleading. RFC6302 > has a very clear focus: address sharing. > >

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

Tom, I think the points you raise below need to be challenged because (a) they are not a priori true and (b) they oversimplify a much more nuanced situation. See below. >> >> However, I agree with you that a broader discussion within the IETF of the >> balance between privacy and the

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On Apr 24, 2018, at 1:58 AM, wrote: > [Med] I confirm that Dave’s I-D does not define a new behavior. It has the > merit to discuss issues related to source ports. I do agree this is a minor > contribution, but I like it because it

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

Amelia, I have read this draft now and, once again, it seems there has been no consideration of the implications for law enforcement of these recommendations. A further example of the "privacy is good, more privacy is better" philosophy. I also reviewed RFC6973 and the exact same problem is

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

All I can say in response to your email is that I appeal to the fair-mindedness of the other readers of this thread to decide for themselves whether my conclusion does a disservice to the discussion that has taken place here. In the quote from my email below what I’m saying is that there are

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On Apr 24, 2018, at 5:11 AM, Dave O'Reilly wrote: > Part of the problem that I have noticed is that the discussions of privacy > vs. law enforcement access to data are very ideologically motivated - on both > sides - with neither side apparently willing to accept that the other

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On Apr 24, 2018, at 9:11 AM, wrote: > What sort of trade-offs can be added to Dave’s document? Do you have in mind > something like: > (1) > -Warranting that logging may be misused for tracking users? > -Logging information

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 2018-04-24 15:25, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Apr 24, 2018, at 9:11 AM, > > wrote: >> What sort of trade-offs can be added to Dave’s document? Do you have >> in

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

Thank you Ted for clarifying. Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Ted Lemon [mailto:mel...@fugue.com] Envoyé : mardi 24 avril 2018 15:26 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : Stephen Farrell; int-area@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

Ted, Could you give me an example of when you think it would be appropriate to log source port and when it would not be? Thanks, daveor > On 24 Apr 2018, at 16:26, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Apr 24, 2018, at 9:53 AM, >

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Dave O'Reilly wrote: > Tom, > > I think the points you raise below need to be challenged because (a) they are > not a priori true and (b) they oversimplify a much more nuanced situation. > See below. > >>> >>> However, I agree with you that a

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On Apr 24, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Dave O'Reilly wrote: > Could you give me an example of when you think it would be appropriate to log > source port and when it would not be? It's not appropriate to log source port if there's no potential for abuse by the connecting party, or if