The RIPE NCC receives information requests from Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and tries to facilitate the provision of any required publicly available information. The RIPE NCC does not provide any confidential or private information to LEAs without a court order or other legally enforceable order or request under Dutch law.

In 2019, the RIPE NCC received 60 information requests from LEAs, one of which was a binding order from a Dutch law enforcement authority. The As in 2018, a particularly high number of requests increased slightly from 2018 due to mainly the fact that the RIPE NCC received repeated requests for the same type of information from the same this year came from a party in the United States. As already mentioned US who repeatedly asked for information not available to the RIPE NCC. Following what was already described in the 2018 report,  the RIPE NCC investigated the reason for these requests and contacted the relevant party. Despite the fact that the role of the RIPE NCC and the procedure the RIPE NCC applies on receiving LEA requests was explained, the RIPE NCC still received further requests for the same type of information from this party.

The RIPE NCC received the following requests in 2019:

• For non-public information:
  • Two requests for non-public information. One of the requests was from a Dutch law-enforcement authority ordering the RIPE NCC to provide non-public information it holds about organisations responsible for Internet number resources. The RIPE NCC complied with this request. The second request was from a non-Dutch LEA for both public and non-public information about organisations that hold Internet number resources. The RIPE NCC did not provide any information as it was later confirmed by the LEA that no reply from the RIPE NCC was needed.
• For public information:
  • Five requests on how to obtain information about the holder of an IP address. The RIPE NCC explained how to use the publicly available information in the RIPE Database to find the party responsible for a particular resource. Additionally, the RIPE NCC explained that non-public information could only be provided with a Dutch court order.
  • Two requests on how to obtain information from the RIPE NCC. In both cases the RIPE NCC referred to the RIPE NCC procedure ‘Handing Requests for Information, Orders and Investigations from Law Enforcement Agencies’ explained it would not provide non-publicly available information to a non-Dutch LEA without an MLAT.
  • Two requests regarding information contained in the RIPE Database and how to use it in order to obtain the requested information. More specifically, one related to the ‘geoloc’ attribute and how the information inserted there should be interpreted. The second one was how to identify all registered Internet number resources on a country level. In responding to each request, the RIPE NCC explained how to access the relevant publicly available information for the specified purpose.
• For information the RIPE NCC does not have:
  • 44 requests for the identification of Internet users of a particular IP address. The RIPE NCC provided information on its role as a Regional Internet Registry (RIR) and explained how to use publicly available information in the RIPE Database to find the party responsible for a particular resource. Additionally, the RIPE NCC explained that non-public information could only be provided with a Dutch court order.
  • 5 requests for information not related to the RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC explained its role as a Regional Internet Registry (RIR) and confirmed it is not responsible for the Internet related areas under question in the relevant requests.

LEA Requests Received by Type of Request per Year

LEA Requests Received by Country per Year