Right, at least in the U.S. See section 4(e) of
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2518.html
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Slightly off topic:
This is being fought by ISPs and civil rights groups all over the place here.
It is amazing how much brain-damage is defended by "EU Framework" these days.
It is also amazing how much national politicians and pressure groups can
assert things about *neighboring* countries that are blatantly wrong or
totally out-of-date. In the EU political structures and processes still
have to be built; it is a new thing.
Daniel
In article <468B1BFA-4BEB-11D8-BCF8-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se>, Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> writes
From the initial discussions in Sweden around the new electronic
communications act, it seems as if the operators are obliged to provide
tapping free of charge. If this turns out to be the case, I guess it is
pretty much the same all over Europe as the law is supposed to be based
on a EU framework.
There's nothing in the new EU Communications Framework (or indeed elsewhere in EU law) that controls whether or not operators can charge for wiretaps. It's a country by country thing. Complicated by some countries that claim to re-imburse, actually being chronically bad at paying the invoices.
In the UK, for example, the current situation is that running costs are re-imbursed, and network upgrades to be wire-tap ready can benefit from a one-off grant (but new networks must be designed to be wire-tap ready at the operator's expense).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
(Although I now what the NA...stands for I have to ask)
From the initial discussions in Sweden around the new electronic
communications act, it seems as if the operators are obliged to
provide
tapping free of charge. If this turns out to be the case, I guess it
is
pretty much the same all over Europe as the law is supposed to be
based
on a EU framework.There's nothing in the new EU Communications Framework (or indeed
elsewhere in EU law) that controls whether or not operators can charge
for wiretaps. It's a country by country thing. Complicated by some
countries that claim to re-imburse, actually being chronically bad at
paying the invoices.
So the EU part is only the tapping requirement? The charging scheme is
local? Or did I miss all of this?
- kurtis -
In article <FA668400-4D69-11D8-BCF8-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se>, Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> writes
(Although I now what the NA...stands for I have to ask)
Plenty of NANOs will have bits of network in the EU (or indeed within the remit of the Cybercrime Convention which the USA has signed but not ratified).
So the EU part is only the tapping requirement? The charging scheme is
local? Or did I miss all of this?
EU law tends to say things about privacy, human rights, and so on. It outlaws wiretaps, but then has exemptions to allow individual states to pass wiretap laws if they feel there's a law enforcement need. Nothing about cost recovery.
The Cybercrime Convention (a Treaty of the Council of Europe - which is not the EU - and not a law in its own right) has an article (#21) *requiring* ratifying states [1] to implement wiretapping, but is also silent on the cost recovery issue, which would be a matter for the individual state's legislature.
[1] Only 4 relatively minor states so far, so the Treaty isn't even in force yet:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/searchsig.asp?NT=185&CM=&DF=