Sounds like encouragement for PERPASS protocols. On Nov 24, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is it too early to start thinking about London? > > An article in today's Telegraph: > > "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals > > ... > > Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. > > When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content – such as porn and illegal content. > > ..." > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-providers-offer-data-free-risks-for-terrorists-and-criminals.html > > I know. I know. It is déjà vu all over again. And for the umpteenth time. But to what extent does the IETF's Wifi need to comply? > > Anyway I suppose that if we can do Beijing we can still do London. > > ;-) > > Gordon >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>