[Rt4-whois] Assistance required please - all RT

[kim at vonarx.ca]

Hi Sharon:

Thank you so much for the work - well done.

With respect to your specific question, I tend to agree with some of the
comments (especially from your LE colleagues), i.e., that the definition
is a little broad.  We had originally drafted it more narrowly, but then
ended up broadining and generalizing it more.  Having said that, however,
I do not see how we can possibly include private entities without losing
all of the consistency of the definition itself, i.e., without it falling
apart and also just limiting it to sworn law enforcement officers.  That
is not appropriate considering that regulatory officers, at least in
Canada, are not sworn law enforcement officers.  Further the definition
talks about "Law Enforcement Entities" and not law enforcement officers as
seperate item.  I think, the defintion could be tightend up by changing
the last part: "...government-imposed legal obligations" to something more
narrowlly such as "...government regulations" or some such thing.

Kim



> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
>
> Dear All,
>
> I hope you are all well.   I was given paragraph 5 to work on by Emily -
> What do the terms law enforcement, applicable laws, producers and
> maintainers mean and what comments, from whom, we have recieved on them,
> and then to come to a final conclusion..
>
> This is where I need your knowledge and experience to comment on whether
> the comments we have received should influence our original definitions.
> I am new to the community so have no real idea of the relevance of the
> group, whether they have any particular agendas etc.
>
> For ease of reading, I have shown each our definitions with a brief
> summary of comments received, and from whom - with the full comments as as
> Annex.  I have also added the Law Enforcement comments as Annex B.
>
> So - could you please take time to have a look - it is only a quick read
> and send back any comments you have as tracked changes.
>
> Particularly I would like Lutz and Kim to have a look at the feedback on
> the law enforcement definition as we were on the original small sub group.
>  And Peter, do you have any additional feedback from law enforcement from
> the GAC?
>
> If you could let me have any feedback by 31st July that would be great,
>
> Many Thanks,
>
> Sharon
>
>
>
> Sharon LEMON OBE
> Deputy Director
> Cyber and Forensics
> Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA)
> 07768 290902
> 0207 855 2800
>
> This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from
> disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be
> subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be
> unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for
> disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of
> contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning
> 0870 268 8677.
>
> All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment.
> Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the
> subject of lawful business monitoring.  E-Mail may be passed at any time
> and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from
> the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files
> transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to
> whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error,
> please contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless
> Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number
> 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal
> purposes._______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>