On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote:
> On 2014-02-06 04:56, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>>>> B. Proposed Additions to the Plan
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>> 5.4.1 Subpoenas and Other Legal Requests
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>> All subpoenas and other legal requests received by the IAOC
> >>>>> >>>> or the IETF will be published on the IAOC website together
> >>>>> >>>> with their responses.
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>> Reason for Change: Greater transparency.
> >>>> >>> Some such requests may include the requirement that they not be
> >>>> >>> revealed.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> they should be rejected out of hand. "we can not read your email"
> >> >
> >> > Does that work for National Security Letters too?
> >
> > i was thinking of them specifically. and yes, i have gone to jail for
> > my political beliefs in the past and would do so again.
>
> A "we have problems here" response for me would trigger a request to
> review under what jurisdiction IETF operate.
>
> We are a standards body that writes documents.
>
> Not an operator or such that deals with operational issues.
But we have administrative services, servers, etc. in the United States.
We can argue philosophically about what we are, but if our administrative
support folks or leadership is served with a NSL or FBI warrantless
supoena which stipulates non-disclosure the folks served will have a
hard time with non-compliance. And if our communications Plan stipulates
we always disclose the legal requests, then we have less transparency
than if we have a plan that requires disclosure unless legally prohibited.
Some companies have announced that they are taking the reverse approach--reporting on a periodic basis that they have received no requests that they cannot disclose over the last period. It's obvious what happens if one or more are received.
Chris.
If we have the funding or pro-bono legal help to challenge such requests,
then a policy which provides a framework for evaluating which requests
to challenge.
--
Chris Elliott
chelliot@xxxxxxxxx