UK ISPs not cooperating with law enforcement

It difficult to tell from the article whether UK ISPs are refusing to
cooperate with lawful requests from UK police, or if UK police are
trying to get ISPs to give information without proper authorization.

http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119873

from reading the article it would appear to be the latter case.

-Dan

Another interesting point of "Roberts Rules of
Procedure" for Internet Operational Protocols,
so to speak... COPA has been struck down again.

Your AUP's may have to be updated. :wink:

[Sorry NSP-SEC's for being redundant.. :*, shh...]

Injunction against Enforcement of COPA,
March 6, 2003.

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/

Excerpt:
Court Strikes Down Censorship Law (Again).

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has, for the second time,
ruled that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) is unconstitutional.
In a decision (pdf) issued on March 6, 2003,
the court found that the law violates the First Amendment
because it improperly restricts access to a substantial
amount of online speech that is lawful for adults.
The decision follows a Supreme Court decision that sent the case
back to the appeals court,
which had previously ruled that COPA was unconstitutional.
EPIC is co-counsel in the case.

It difficult to tell from the article whether UK ISPs are refusing to
cooperate with lawful requests from UK police, or if UK police are
trying to get ISPs to give information without proper authorization.

http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119873

It's difficult to argue with the premise that "it was in the interests of
ISPs to co-operate in investigations against hackers and virus writers".

I can recall posts to this list bemoaning the fact that the FBI was slow
or unwilling to launch cybercrime investigations not tied espionage,
terrorism, or other good, old-fashioned crime.

It's also strawman.

The issue at the core is whether ISPs should just roll over and cough up
anything to law enforcement, any time, without valid warrants.

-Dan

The issue at the core is whether ISPs should just roll over and cough up
anything to law enforcement, any time, without valid warrants.

I am sure that such a cosmopolitan bunch as NANOG will also understand that
EU Data Protection laws give people quite a big comeback when they find
someone has not treated their personal information in the way they are
entitled to expect. While the US may be the litigous society in truth, we
are catching up quite fast here on this front...

Policy was, many years ago, when we were 'all' at Demon that we would
*never* hand out any logs until there was a court order. Period. At that
point we would roll over and stick our paws in the air... subtle hints from
the police and others were met with this policy.

Of course, the RIP Act brings big brother truly to life now. If only the
civil service would stop infighting long
enough to implement it :wink:

Peter

Policy was, many years ago, when we were 'all' at Demon that we would
*never* hand out any logs until there was a court order. Period. At that
point we would roll over and stick our paws in the air... subtle hints from
the police and others were met with this policy.

Yes, the current situation in the UK is that there are (for hacking
enquiries, but not financial matters) no police "powers" other than a
court order, but many CSPs (voice telcos especially) are sympathetic to
special pleading from the police that revealing information about their
customers is justified if it's the only way progress a criminal
investigation.

http://www.linx.net/misc/dpa28-3form.html

The recent issue with Scotland Yard might suggest that this pleading had
been unsuccessful, but they didn't then go and get a court order (for
whatever reason).

Of course, the RIP Act brings big brother truly to life now. If only the
civil service would stop infighting long
enough to implement it :wink:

It was the Minister (Blunkett) who stopped the implementation, due to
police politics... For once, the civil servants were innocent.