nanog mailing list archives
Re: packet inspection and privacy
From: Dave Stewart <dbs () dbscom com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:27:09 -0400
At 02:29 PM 6/24/2002, you wrote:
Point 3) is just about the same as 1), but it does imply a slightly different motivation behind the inspection.I know informing a suspect of a phone tap, in the telecom business will get you hard time. SO again, check with your law people...a lot's changed since 9.11 and the police state is doing things that havent been ruled legal or illegal by the USSC. So beware and get competent legal council before implementing anything.
I do know that when I've gotten supoenas for information (logs, etc), I was instructed by language in the document not to disclose its existance. I always suspected this included informing the customer!
It makes sense when you think about it - if you know your data's being inspected, you're not going to send that message about whatever illegal activity you're involved in.
So authorities investigating something, even pre-9/11, don't want the subject of that investigation to know they're being looked at.
I think that beyond including in your TOS that you may from time to time inspect data, etc, for system/network security and/or performance reasons, you can't inform customers every time you start looking at things.
IANAL, though, so do seek competent legal counsel on the issue before implementing anything.
Current thread:
- packet inspection and privacy Mark Kent (Jun 24)
- Re: packet inspection and privacy Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 24)
- Re: packet inspection and privacy batz (Jun 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: packet inspection and privacy blitz (Jun 24)
- Re: packet inspection and privacy Dave Stewart (Jun 24)
- RE: packet inspection and privacy Mark Radabaugh (Jun 24)
- Re: packet inspection and privacy Dave Stewart (Jun 24)
- Re: packet inspection and privacy Steven M. Bellovin (Jun 24)
- Re: packet inspection and privacy David Charlap (Jun 25)
- Re: packet inspection and privacy Steven M. Bellovin (Jun 25)