From: Fergie (no email)
Date: Sat Jul 08 2006 - 00:18:37 EDT
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 <> 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/
|
|
|