-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 So is there just reluctant acceptance of this law, or is there push-back and plans to repeal, or...?
I guess my question is something along the lines of "Are people just reluctantly accepting that government surveillance & micromanagement of private businesses/networks is a fact of life?" I am purposefully making a distinction here between the U.S. CALEA [1] and NSLs [2] and a NZ spy agency getting "...to decide on network equipment procurement and design decisions". The latter seems like a bit of an overreach? - - ferg [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter On 5/13/2014 6:40 AM, George Michaelson wrote: > It got a pretty firefight discussion at the NZNOG. None of the ISPs > feel comfortable with it, but in avoiding a shoot-the-messenger > syndrome they tried to give good feedback to the reps from GCSB who > came to talk. Basically, a lot of post-act variations are expected > to clarify what changes do and do not have to be notified. > > There was a lot of bitter humour about calling them at 3am to > report BGP failures and ask permission to remediate. > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Paul Ferguson > <fergdawgs...@mykolab.com <mailto:fergdawgs...@mykolab.com>> > wrote: > > I realize that New Zealand is *not* in North America (hence > NANOG), but I figure that some global providers might be interested > here. > > This sounds rather... dire (probably not the right word). > > "The new Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) > Act of 2013 is in effect in New Zealand and brings in several > drastic changes for ISPs, telcos and service providers. One of the > country's spy agencies, the GCSB, gets to decide on network > equipment procurement and design decisions (PDF), plus operators > have to register with the police and obtain security clearance for > some staff. Somewhat illogically, the NZ government pushed through > the law combining mandated communications interception capabilities > for law enforcement, with undefined network security requirements > as decided by the GCSB. All network operators are subject to the > new law, including local providers as well as the likes of > Facebook, Google, Microsoft, who have opposed it, saying the new > statutes clash with overseas privacy legislation." > > http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/05/13/005259/new-zealand-spy-agency-to-vet-network-builds-provider-staff > > FYI, > > - ferg > > > > > - -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlNyItUACgkQKJasdVTchbL5GwEAxMtkr0W8oCtLTEdJDcdJHZTw hCGmG1ZTbWdb7NTEnwIA/j4YYMcN/gOQCQfABs1UIYFX30i/SewOkXYDOvfO6ReM =rAdv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
