Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Wrapping up

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sometimes a "me too" post is in order. I think the substantive changes were 
valid.
  I believe it reemphasizes the point that existing structure handles a lot of 
the revelation data. We do not always have to reinvent the wheel.
   
  Eric

Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:
  Carole
Thanks for these thoughtful recommendations. I have modified the
document and it is attached. 

Let me go through one by one and explain what I did, anyone who objects
can sound off on the list. 

>>> "Carole Bird" 6/5/2007 8:58 AM >>>
>For example, "due process" means very different things to a 
>number of different people. If it means that "persons/agencies must 
>be identified as having a legislative mandate to investigate an
offence"
>I have no concerns with same. However, if it means" you require a 
>court order" than this is one of those things that needs to be
discussed 

The word "due process" appears 3 times in the report. 

The first time, I have added "existing" due process to show that 
we not talking about _creating_ new forms of "due process" but about
_following_ existing due process. 

The second time, in the description of Type 1 access, is hypothetical
and in my opinion raises no definitional issues.

The third instance I have modified exactly as you proposed.

>2. With regards to the paragraph on Public LEAs. I would 
>recommend that the last line read " but there was agreement that 
>a basic institutional framework for handling this problem may already

>exist" .

Done.

>3. Regarding Private Parties: Where it states "There were some 
>suggestions that private parties obtain access to data indirectly, 
>via their national LEAs." I would recommend that we add a line 
>following that sentence stating "There was some indication that 
>National LEAs may not legally be able to perform this function". 

The draft does say that later, so I have added a phrase referring to
that. 

>with regards to Type 2 I think we need to state that no 
>agreement was reached on the auditing/record-keeping 
>methodology and that further research and discussion be held 
>regarding this topic to ensure that whatever record-keeping/
>audit requirements are proposed have direct input from LEAs/
>Governments to ensure suitability and feasibility. 

We cannot say no agrement was reached, because we did not discuss any
specific proposals for auditing/record-keeping. So there was neither
agreement nor disagreement, there was simply a recognition that some
kind of accountability would have to be in place. I have therefore added
a line explaining that. Remember, we are dealing with policy not
implementation.

>5. With regards to Type 4 access, I would recommend the line "Private

>parties obtain access to the shielded information through an LEA under

>due process of law" be changed to read " Private parties obtain access

>to the shielded information through their respective governments or 
>through an agency designated by their governments where permitted 
>national law".

Done.




       
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not web links.