Folks, I'm not sure how much has been discussed about protecting LEA requests and responses. Here's the assumptions my group has been using. We assume every transaction is logged. This is simply good system design. The log makes it possible to track down errors. The errors might be due to system misdesign or misimplementation, operational mistakes or anything else. The log also makes it possible to audit the usage and detect misuse. The next question is who should have access to the log. In general, we expect registrants would be able to see what requests have been made regarding their registrations. Whether others might be able to access some or all of the transactions is worth additional discussion. However, it's also clear that some requests, perhaps only those from law enforcement but possibly other requests too, need to be curtained off. Curtained off but not deleted. The uses outlined in the first paragraph are still important. Therefore, the log of certain transactions has to be protected and restricted to a narrow set of people with the appropriate privilege.
From a system design perspective, there's a very clean division between mechanism and policy. The system has to include a mechanism for designating certain transactions as requiring special logging. Those log of those transactions would then be kept segregated from the normal log, and access to those transactions would be restricted to specially authorized people.
Determining which transactions are treated this way and which people are permitted to access the log is then a matter of policy. In the list of requests types that emerged from our interaction with the PSWG, the PSWG said two types of requests, KALE-1 (investigation of a possible suspect) and KALE-3 (exigent circumstances), require special logging. The other three types of requests do not. Thanks, Steve On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:38 PM Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
Folks,
A while ago we met with some PSWG members to discuss the types of requests they would like to be able to make. The results were quite crisp: five types of requests, one of which is an ordinary public request. Of the other four, two were in support of specific investigations prior to obtaining court order and two were with court order or equivalent authority ("exigent circumstances"). The variations within these pairs differed in whether the existence of the request (and response) needed to be kept hidden, whether searches were included, and whether the response was needed immediately.
With Laureen Kapin's permission, please see the attached summary.
Thanks,
Steve
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:08 PM Devan Reed <devan.reed@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
In order to move forward the conversation on confidentiality of LEA requests, which is also something that was called out in the most recent GAC communique, we would like to schedule a dedicated meeting to this topic which would be led by Laureen Kapin. As this is a topic of special interest to the GAC/PSWG, Laureen may bring along some colleagues to take part in the conversation. For those interested to join, please fill in the doodle poll (https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/aQ6mVnMb) so we can find a suitable slot to schedule this meeting.
Thank you in advance!
Kind regards,
Devan _______________________________________________ GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam mailing list GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.