[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

True necessity of Records? [was: CryptoSeal]

To: grarpamp <[email protected]>
Subject: True necessity of Records? [was: CryptoSeal]
From: [email protected] (coderman)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:57:51 -0700
Cc: cpunks <[email protected]>
In-reply-to: <CAD2Ti288GVG3OuTfPub1xWgVujkWrvpzk=5GSSgOsv3=bxtxMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD2Ti29SwFzmZa2pmhw1ezzQppF3zssU1ySozA5Ga8NC58ar_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJVRA1QTig0hXvekxFtSDp7Px64=cVCk2eq+5nnDtWo97JWBFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD2Ti288GVG3OuTfPub1xWgVujkWrvpzk=5GSSgOsv3=bxtxMw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> And per the topic... what was the positive/negative effect in cases where
> that data wasn't available for a request?

we always had the data; i can't speak to negative effects.


> Who did the encouragement?
> Why? And what stick did they wield?

the retention period was requested by carriers using our service
(contractual obligation) as well as our own internal legal counsel (7
years retention with full off-site backups in IronMountain, etc.)

the stick was contracts/monies externally, and legal counsel internally.

to be clear, this was not a direct LEO mandate.

Follow-Ups:
- True necessity of Records? [was: CryptoSeal]
  - From: [email protected] (Peter Gutmann)
- True necessity of Records? [was: CryptoSeal]
  - From: [email protected] (grarpamp)

References:
- True necessity of Records? [was: CryptoSeal]
  - From: [email protected] (grarpamp)
- True necessity of Records? [was: CryptoSeal]
  - From: [email protected] (coderman)
- True necessity of Records? [was: CryptoSeal]
  - From: [email protected] (grarpamp)

Prev by Date: Mail Lists In the Post-Snowden Era
Next by Date: "How I compiled TrueCrypt 7.1a for Win32 and matched the official binaries"
Previous by thread: True necessity of Records? [was: CryptoSeal]
Next by thread: True necessity of Records? [was: CryptoSeal]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread