The RIP Issue:
Recently the UK Government has passed a bill that gives special
powers to certain authorities to intercept messages passing
over "public telecommunication systems" (e.g. the Internet).
The Government requires that Public Telecommunication Operators
(PTOs) must make provision in their systems to enable this.
Consume is concerned that this might apply to a "Consume network"
and might have to make the same provisions.
Resolution of the Issue:
There has been much discussion by the Consume mailing lists
(http://www.consume.net/mailing_lists.html) about this.
No one has stated that, if it had to, a Consume networking system could meet the requirement at present, so we assume it couldn't.
The view that Consume is NOT a PTO
and RIP does not apply to a Consume network,
gives the strongest case
for taking no action (see correspondence from the Consume
mailings, below) and
LanDclub currently support that view and intend to take no
further action on this issue.
This decision is to be kept under review and is subject to change
in the light of:
- alternative statements being made by Consume
- a general agreement being reached by members of LanDclub
- any other events that cast doubt on the statement on RIP
- clarifications or information that may have been overlooked.
There have been other arguments that the issue can only be resolved by a court case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:32:42AM -0800, Aled W Morris wrote: >>>I'm not a lawyer (and the grammar is very difficult to >>>parse) but if I'm reading it right the requirements for >>>provision of intercept capability would apply to *both* >>>Consume and whatever ISP you use on the wired side. >>>The language talks about "public telecommunication >>>systems" being subject to orders requiring intercept >>>capability and both seem to fit the definition. followed by: On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 (Author unknown) wrote: >> Ironically, Consume may be safe from RIP because in order to use >> 802.11 networking, the "users" will probably need to be "members" >> of some ad-hoc organisation, therefore Consume won't be a "public" >> system. followed by: On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 Steve Kennedy wrote: >And then on the other hand, each "club" may offer a "public" service >and thus each club may have to comply ... >Steve followed by: Annette Henley (who works for the Governments Radiocommunications Agency, but is expressing a personal opinion here) wrote: The definition of a Public Telecoms Operator in RIP is probably the same as in the Telecoms Act (1984). Since we have recently established that consume is not a PTO (and hence cannot offer telecoms services by way of business) I fail to see how this can apply to private peering agreements between consume players. I know nothing of RIP but if it is only about PTOs then this isn't a PTO .....? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Further comments on this issue are welcome. Send them to the Consume mailing lists after checking the archives on this topic.
Local Contact/Acting Co-ordinator: Paul Clarke
9 Mar 01