Re: Fridays are always good for shock headlines...

["Fergie" <fergdawg () netzero net>]

Well, the thing that really got my attention was "...forcing
equipment manaufacturers.." -- which is somewhat of a broad brush-
stroke.

Having said that, this has been discussed ad nauseum, has had the
FCC rule on it, etc., and has -- at first blush-- seen U.S. courts
support it.

But the Internet is _not_ the U.S., and contrary to LEA and
U.S. agency opinion, does not require everyone on the planet
to comply.

This presents a bunch of problems -- and submitting to
arbitrary logic along the lines of (paraphrased) "Well,
what's the problem?" doesn't even come close to illustrating
that the problem is understood.

That's the only point I was trying (and probably unsuccessfuly)
to make. :-)

And this:

We work in a world where we're trying to keep bits flowing between
various points in the Internet, and compliance to a basic set of
accepted standards seems to be an environment which is becoming more
and more clouded by "foo" -- where "foo" is your various garden
variety scare tactic of the day.

What a mess.

- ferg


-- Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org> wrote:

[snip]

> The FBI has drafted sweeping legislation that would require Internet
> service providers to create wiretapping hubs for police surveillance
> and force makers of networking gear to build in backdoors for
> eavesdropping, CNET News.com has learned. 

[snip]

Potential abuse means a lot of things, and it certainly dictates prudence 
and vigilence by citizens and the Gov. That said, I think this may really 
be a win-win for both the LEO's and the ISP's.

Than again, if an ISP is approached once every 20 years, I hope the FBI
will be covering the costs. Someone always says they do?

        Gadi.

[snip]

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/