Re: Info on alleged new German digital wiretapping law?

Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu> writes:

>None of the Europeans I ran into at today's SAFE conference had even heard
>of the legislation decried at
>
> http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=3027
>
>and in alt.fan.ernst-zundel. What's up?

The report is correct.

The mainstream press has completely ingnored the wiretap legislation,
probably because it is part of the long-awaited new telecommunications
law to end the Telekom monopoly.

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Ulf Moeller wrote:

> Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu> writes:
> 
> > http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=3027
> >
> >and in alt.fan.ernst-zundel. What's up?
> 
> The report is correct.
> 
> The mainstream press has completely ingnored the wiretap legislation,
> probably because it is part of the long-awaited new telecommunications
> law to end the Telekom monopoly.

We 'merkins were probably just a little more aware.

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? That's the bit I found loony, given
what I've heard (from you and others) about the generally semi-clueful
technology and telecoms ministries. Is it THAT bad?

-rich

> > > 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.

2) They have to keep files of customer data (name, address, etc.) that
the Regulation Authority can access secretly at any time.

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

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Ulf Moeller wrote:

> > http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=3027
> >
> >and in alt.fan.ernst-zundel. What's up?
> 
> The report is correct.
> 
> The mainstream press has completely ingnored the wiretap legislation,
> probably because it is part of the long-awaited new telecommunications
> law to end the Telekom monopoly.

As has the media in Sweden completely ignored that we have our own
'Digital Telephony Act' as of July 1. I haven't been able to find it
on the net yet. From second hand sources it seems more or less identical
to the US one, although the financial burdens for reprogramming and
hardware adjustsments are put solely on the telco's (Sweden has no
monopoly since a decade). The telco's have a respite until 7.1.97
to fulfill the requirements.


Asgaard