This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/cooperation-wg@ripe.net/
[cooperation-wg] What governments don't get (feedback on data retention)
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Re: cooperation-wg digest, Vol 1 #28 - 1 msg
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] SMTP forwarding in the face of Data Protection Directive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alessandro Vesely
vesely at tana.it
Thu May 5 17:15:23 CEST 2011
Hi all! After applauding Malcom yesterday, I've recognized a parallel between VAT and wiretapping: They both don't work well with layers. Traditionally, telephony is conceived as the service of a single operator. Suppose that the telecom splits among various intermediaries. Actually, several large industries define such kind of split internally, for administrative purposes. However, if the split is real each provider of a service layer has to pay VAT, while departments don't. By a similar logic, if cryptography is deployed at some layers, then wiretapping has to be coordinated with those layers as well --possibly not the network provider or cable operator roles that the directive targets. Can someone suggest a solution that would solve both issues :-)
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Re: cooperation-wg digest, Vol 1 #28 - 1 msg
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] SMTP forwarding in the face of Data Protection Directive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]