Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement

[Jim Dixon]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

> >This has been proposed for, but it fails for the usual reasons.
> >
> >An ISP is free to say "anyone requesting a tap is required to pay a
> >fee," just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle installation
> >of special Carnivore equipment for a certain fee.
>
> My (perhaps flawed) reading of Steve's post was different from Tims: the
> ISP bills the
> *tapped* person for "misc unplanned network work", not the *tappers*.
> The ISP puts it into their contract: if tapped by court order, we'll
> bill you for our effort.

In the UK ISPs certainly can bill the police for any taps installed
at their standard rates, just as the telcos have always billed the
police for the cost of wire taps.  There was a lot of opposition
from ISPs to taps 2-3 years ago; it largely disappeared when it became
clear that they would be paid.

The FBI made a presentation on Carnivore a couple of years ago at
a NANOG conference in Washington.  In a side remark, the guy giving
the presentation made it clear that the practice in the US is the
same: ISPs are paid by the police for any taps, paid at their normal
rates.

> If your CPA has his time spent on govt things, can he bill you for it?
> If your ISP is hassled by RIAA, can they bill you?  Certainly, if its in
> your contract.

I ran an ISP for seven years and was involved in a number of industry
associations.  Never heard of anyone anywhere billing a customer for
the cost of taps, or of anyone putting such a provision in their
contracts (I reviewed quite a few such contracts very carefully).  It
would amount to a form of tax without any basis in legislation and would,
I believe, arouse very strong opposition.

But perhaps I miss the point of the thread ;-)

--
Jim Dixon  jdd at dixons.org   tel +44 117 982 0786  mobile +44 797 373 7881