From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To: Ulf Moeller <um@c2.org>
Message Hash: bdbe4bcf30446e60f77bc64e3b45cd367d7e5179960feb2df21ab44d60eb61a8
Message ID: <Pine.GUL.3.94.960703162440.5088H-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Reply To: <m0ubYpS-00009UC@ulf.mali.sub.org>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-04 02:28:35 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 10:28:35 +0800
From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 10:28:35 +0800
To: Ulf Moeller <um@c2.org>
Subject: Re: Info on alleged new German digital wiretapping law?
In-Reply-To: <m0ubYpS-00009UC@ulf.mali.sub.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.94.960703162440.5088H-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Ulf Moeller wrote:
> > > > http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=3027
>
> > So what's the prospect for implementation? The claim is that law enforcement
> > is supposed to have a back door to every computer system. Are we talking
> > about escrow of root passwords, or what?
>
> No. There are two points:
>
> 1) The network operators have to create a wiretapping system to be
> approved by the Regulation Authority, and operate dedicated digital
> lines for law enforcement access. As I understand it, Internet
> providers could be forced to duplicate IP packets to that line, when
> wiretapping has been ordered.
Sounds like US and Swedish law. What's the phase-in period?
> 2) They have to keep files of customer data (name, address, etc.) that
> the Regulation Authority can access secretly at any time.
Sounds like a market opportunity.
-rich
Return to July 1996
Return to “um@c2.org (Ulf Moeller)”