Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 24 Mar 2017, at 19:50, John R Levine wrote:

You've been on the IESG and I haven't, but I'm still scratching my head about why this process needs to change to give the IESG even a little more work after it's been working OK for over a decade.

First of all, this whole discussion started because of something that is not working (or at least wasn't anticipated and there are concerns about): Dealing with gag orders and the like. My contention was (is) that in addressing that, it would help to be absolutely clear in our procedure documents that IETF leadership, who will inevitably consist of people from different nations under different laws, will have full access to any subpoena, in the way that the officers of any organization would have access to any legal documents.

Second, I would be perfectly OK (and would not at all be surprised) if the IESG were to say to legal counsel, for example, "While you should supply the IESG with all subpoenas through our normal procedure, any subpoena that simply asks for certified blue sheets you should simply satisfy such a subpoena, since blue sheets are public information anyway." The addition of any "process" is only to ensure that subpoenas are visible to leadership, not because any particular kind of subpoena needs review.

Whenever someone says, "there's no need for you to know this information", when not preceded by a long explanation of an additional harm one is incurring by simply knowing the piece of information, particularly when "you" is the leadership of an organization, it sends up a giant red flag for me.

See Klensin's previous message. The chance of reputation damage to someone named in a subpoena is significant, and the IESG has no legal expertise.

The IESG has legal expertise in the form of a legal advisor, the same way the Board of Directors of any corporation does, and the same way I do with my personal attorney. And it would behoove any and all of us to follow that legal advice and make ourselves aware of what should and should not be publicized. And an AD who goes blabbing about the contents of any legal document without talking to counsel is not suited to be an AD.

...judge who asks why we show criminal subpoenas to a bunch of nerds with no legal experience rather than having our lawyer handle it like
everyone else does.

That's insulting of the intelligence and integrity of the IESG, and I think it's the height of hubris on your part. Any judge who asks why criminal subpoenas are shown to a "bunch of idiots" on the Board of Directors of a corporation who have "no legal experience" should be told to piss off; they are the people responsible for the corporation, and they can look at any legal document served on the company, and they have the eventual responsibility for any information that goes out the door. I can tell you that the day my attorney supplies my documents in response to a subpoena without asking me, or without having prior instructions on particular documents that they can supply, and says anything close to, "You don't need to know what's in the subpoena", is the day my attorney gets fired.

And please, do consider the case where the subpoena is from an authority in <<insert country that you're not impressed with>> and the subpoena is for all of the server logs in order to discover whether John, a citizen of said country, has been reading messages from a particular WG that said the authorities in this country deem to be talking about tools of sedition like encryption. I'd like to think that our leadership might weigh in on such a request.

Again, I am fine if the IESG wants to delegate the authority to answer certain (or even most) subpoenas. But I want our procedures to be clear that they can look at them and everyone to be on notice about what that implies. What I absolutely do not want is a contractor or advisor who is not answerable to the community having the power to withhold information from our chosen leadership.

pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]