RE: RBN and it's spin-offs

["Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>]

He's also assuming that US on-shore law applies, which it doesn't when
any one party is a non-US person, at which point it passes to the real
of National Security.



-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Ferguson [mailto:fergdawgster () gmail com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:12 PM
To: Keith Medcalf
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: RBN and it's spin-offs

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf () dessus com>
wrote:

> Without a warrant, there is an absolute right to privacy.
> It continues to exist right up until either (a) one party chooses
> to give up that privacy or (b) a third party arrives with a Court
> Order.  This is simply a covenant between two parties to preserve
> that "private" state unless lawfully compelled by lawful process
> otherwise.  In other words, a covenant to adhere to the rule of
> law and the courts in the event of any dispute between the parties
> or any third party.  It sure seems like a good thing to me -- and a
> covenant I would hope anyone I do business adheres to.

That's funny.

You're assuming that the MLAT [1] process works -- it doesn't.

- - ferg

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Legal_Assistance_Treaty

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)

wj8DBQFLPCSVq1pz9mNUZTMRAmtnAKCMrUkoeVmgHf+4z5/os5zfuVKLkwCgkE1G
cq4Iv0qlUZD6V6/txAPoh3Q=
=4RZt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/