UK ISPs not cooperating with law enforcement
It difficult to tell from the article whether UK ISPs are refusing to cooperate with lawful requests from UK police, or if UK police are trying to get ISPs to give information without proper authorization. http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119873
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:
It difficult to tell from the article whether UK ISPs are refusing to cooperate with lawful requests from UK police, or if UK police are trying to get ISPs to give information without proper authorization. http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119873
from reading the article it would appear to be the latter case. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Another interesting point of "Roberts Rules of Procedure" for Internet Operational Protocols, so to speak... COPA has been struck down again. Your AUP's may have to be updated. ;) [Sorry NSP-SEC's for being redundant.. :*, shh...] Injunction against Enforcement of COPA, March 6, 2003. http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/ Excerpt: Court Strikes Down Censorship Law (Again). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has, for the second time, ruled that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) is unconstitutional. In a decision (pdf) issued on March 6, 2003, the court found that the law violates the First Amendment because it improperly restricts access to a substantial amount of online speech that is lawful for adults. The decision follows a Supreme Court decision that sent the case back to the appeals court, which had previously ruled that COPA was unconstitutional. EPIC is co-counsel in the case. ================================================= Supreme Court Maintains Ban on COPA Enforcement. ================================================= The Supreme Court on May 13, 2002, issued a decision on Congress's latest attempt to censor the Internet. The Court did not decide any of the core legal questions, but ordered a lower court to decide the case on a wider range of First Amendment issues. Meanwhile, a majority of justices appeared to have grave doubts about the law's ultimate constitutionality, and the Court left in place an injunction barring enforcement of the law. The case has to do with a law passed by Congress in 1998 called the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a broad censorship law that severely restricts any speech on the Web that is "harmful to minors," and imposes steep fines and prison terms for violators. We don't make the laws people, we just abide by them. Sean Donelan wrote:
It difficult to tell from the article whether UK ISPs are refusing to cooperate with lawful requests from UK police, or if UK police are trying to get ISPs to give information without proper authorization.
http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119873
It difficult to tell from the article whether UK ISPs are refusing to cooperate with lawful requests from UK police, or if UK police are trying to get ISPs to give information without proper authorization.
http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119873
It's difficult to argue with the premise that "it was in the interests of ISPs to co-operate in investigations against hackers and virus writers". I can recall posts to this list bemoaning the fact that the FBI was slow or unwilling to launch cybercrime investigations not tied espionage, terrorism, or other good, old-fashioned crime.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Mark Borchers wrote:
It's difficult to argue with the premise that "it was in the interests of ISPs to co-operate in investigations against hackers and virus writers".
It's also strawman. The issue at the core is whether ISPs should just roll over and cough up anything to law enforcement, any time, without valid warrants. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
The issue at the core is whether ISPs should just roll over and cough up anything to law enforcement, any time, without valid warrants.
I am sure that such a cosmopolitan bunch as NANOG will also understand that EU Data Protection laws give people quite a big comeback when they find someone has not treated their personal information in the way they are entitled to expect. While the US may be the litigous society in truth, we are catching up quite fast here on this front... Policy was, many years ago, when we were 'all' at Demon that we would *never* hand out any logs until there was a court order. Period. At that point we would roll over and stick our paws in the air... subtle hints from the police and others were met with this policy. Of course, the RIP Act brings big brother truly to life now. If only the civil service would stop infighting long enough to implement it ;-) Peter
In message <019c01c2e6e5$8dc23710$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>, Peter Galbavy <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> writes
Policy was, many years ago, when we were 'all' at Demon that we would *never* hand out any logs until there was a court order. Period. At that point we would roll over and stick our paws in the air... subtle hints from the police and others were met with this policy.
Yes, the current situation in the UK is that there are (for hacking enquiries, but not financial matters) no police "powers" other than a court order, but many CSPs (voice telcos especially) are sympathetic to special pleading from the police that revealing information about their customers is justified if it's the only way progress a criminal investigation. http://www.linx.net/misc/dpa28-3form.html The recent issue with Scotland Yard might suggest that this pleading had been unsuccessful, but they didn't then go and get a court order (for whatever reason).
Of course, the RIP Act brings big brother truly to life now. If only the civil service would stop infighting long enough to implement it ;-)
It was the Minister (Blunkett) who stopped the implementation, due to police politics... For once, the civil servants were innocent. -- Roland Perry | tel: +44 20 7645 3505 | roland@linx.org Director of Public Policy | fax: +44 20 7645 3529 | http://www.linx.net London Internet Exchange | mbl: +44 7909 68 0005 | /contact/roland
In message <NFBBJLNCOLKBLIJLHFIGMEEECEAA.mborchers@igillc.com>, "Mark Borchers" writes:
It difficult to tell from the article whether UK ISPs are refusing to cooperate with lawful requests from UK police, or if UK police are trying to get ISPs to give information without proper authorization.
http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119873
It's difficult to argue with the premise that "it was in the interests of ISPs to co-operate in investigations against hackers and virus writers".
I can recall posts to this list bemoaning the fact that the FBI was slow or unwilling to launch cybercrime investigations not tied espionage, terrorism, or other good, old-fashioned crime.
I haven't checked the law since the Patriot Act was passed. Prior to that, however, in the U.S. the law *prohibited* communications carriers from giving certain information to the government without a warrant -- but they were free to give it or sell it to anyone else. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2703.html see (c)(1)(A) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
It difficult to tell from the article whether UK ISPs are refusing to cooperate with lawful requests from UK police, or if UK police are trying to get ISPs to give information without proper authorization.
http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119873
The latter. -- Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking neil@DOMINO.ORG
participants (8)
-
Dan Hollis -
Mark Borchers -
neil＠DOMINO.ORG -
Peter Galbavy -
Richard Irving -
Roland Perry -
Sean Donelan -
Steven M. Bellovin