Yep… If I had infrastructure in NZ, that would be enough to cause me to remove it.
Owen On May 13, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Paul Ferguson <fergdawgs...@mykolab.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > 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/ > > iF4EAREIAAYFAlNyHw4ACgkQKJasdVTchbLwDgD/WVHo2iTapJ90l8MRcwUZ5OQ7 > QfJ5cI1v4t2bUXZp1hQBAKHCP0hyxg6naGOzRLt/vHjgxXnl3+yiWoj0ENxQyIr9 > =0yLu > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
