[AusNOG] Confirmation of govt blackholing. Was: Re: Understanding lack of Aus connectivity to melbournefreeuniversity.org.

[Bevan Slattery]

Sure and I would have hoped the engineers were consulted here.

But some companies of scale and their in house Counsel would not like network engineers calling law enforcement agencies playing Matlock, particularly when said notices are generally not even addressed to said engineer. 

Of course I would believe they would consult the engineers, but I could see how the investigation and decision in larger companies doesn't sit with the engineer but those that have the ultimate legal training (lawyers) and ultimate legal responsibility (CEO and Board).

This is front if mind for me at the moment as I'm off to Washington DC in a few hours to front "Team Telecom".  I'd be mortified if my network engineers took it upon themselves and rang some three letter acronym agency to dispute or discuss a notice without my (or lawyers) knowledge.

Anyway, I think we agree on the principles here and understand what should happen.  But it's easy to sit on the outside and judge without all the information (which I'm doing too).  Just trying to show sometimes its not that simple and that this isn't always the engineers call.

Probably time to move on.

B

Cheers

B



On 16/05/2013, at 3:28 AM, Sam Silvester <sam.silvester at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Bevan Slattery wrote:
>> In some companies of scale network engineers focus on network engineering, rather than the work of management or legal teams.
>> 
>> Not saying its right, just saying...
>> 
>> B
> 
> Equally, I'd suggest it's good practice for  management and legal decisions to have input or advice from technical teams.
> 
> Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130516/48c8ecbd/attachment.html>