Re: [Re: CRIME Wiretapping WiFi]

From: Duane Nickull (duane@private)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 10:58:01 PDT

  • Next message: Duane Nickull: "Re: CRIME Wiretapping WiFi" 

    



  


Brian:
    

    
I was not comparing the 1984 work to the actual act, just the methodology
of getting citizens to give up their rights to privacy by fear.  The selling
of the Patriot Act to US citizens has been in the name of protecting them
against an unseen enemy.  There have even been incidents where those opposed
to it have been called "un-American", inplying the old "one of us" vs. the
bad guys message.  As an outsider,  I find it very interesting but also feel
that a balance has to be achived between the individuals rights to privacy
and not being subject to unreasonable searches and sureveillance and the
government's responsibility to protect its citizens.  I'm sure if given the
choiceof having your email monitored to prevent deaths due to terrorists,
most would voluntarily say yes to save lives.  The real world useage of the
powers however, may not be so black and white. having someone check a library
record to see if you read a book on comminism as part of a company's due
diligence before giving or refusing you a job is not so cut and dry.
    

    
The thing you have noted is that 'content" cannot be collected.  "Content"
is not defined within the act itself, leaving the actual trapping authority
the responsibility of separating the content from what they are entitled
to see.  This will often involve reviewing the content which may have the
same consequence of actually reading the content itself.  Anyone who has
used a simple packet sniffer has seen both routing and content mixed together.
 If you analyze the packets one by one, your brain cannot help reading words
it recognizes.  IMHO - these will not be electronically separated and humans
will liekly read into both.  That fact has many civil liberty watchdogs very
concerned.
    

    
Duane
    

    
Brian Varine wrote:
    

    
  
    The Patriot Act is far from 1984. Wiretaps still require a judges order only
now it can cover multiple numbers and jurisdictions which is prudent. How many
of us have one phone number? Criminals carry cellular phones and travel as
well. The computer trespasser provision makes it possible for LEO's to track
someone hacking into your system if you give LEO's permission, otherwise
they'd need yet another warrant. Prior to the Patriot Act, there was nothing
defining the rules of Pen Registers and Trap Trace directly to the Internet.
The Patriot Act at least specifies that the PR/TT applies to the Internet as
well as telephone systems. Content cannot be collected. Don't believe all the
hype on the Patriot Act.

Duane Nickull <duane@private> wrote:
  
    
  
    
    
     Anwers inline... 
 Crispin Cowan wrote:

 A friend posed
 this question, and I have no idea what the answer might be: 
    
    
  
    
  
    
  
    
  
    
    
     If I'm running an open, non-encrypted wireless network, what is (say) > 
    
    
  
    
  
    the FBI allowed to intercept in an effort to gain evidence?  Do they >  need a
warrant?  Is the data admissible?  What if I live in an 
  
    
  
    
    
     apartment with  
 other folks.  What about when I'm using a t-mobile hotspot?
 Yes - There is a new sherrif in town in the US and he likes ot read 
 the Patriot
 Act (anything on anybody anytime).
    
    
  
    
  
    
  
    
  
    
    
     As George Orwell implied in 1984, nothing can get a group of citizens to
 voluntarily give up their rights faster than a prolonged war against an
    
    
  
    
  
    unseen
  
    
  
    
    
     enemy.

 

 Read about the vast new powers of wiretaps on American Citizens here:

 

 http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/Patriot_Chart_law.html
  Same questions,
 but this time, I'm running an encrypted network?  Can they 

 capture the data and crack the key?  Can they capture it for later use
    
    
  
    
  
    after 
  
    
  
    
    
       

 they sieze my equipment and get my key? 
 Yes - they have that right under the new act.  They can do whatever they
 deem necessary in the name of national security.

 

 From the act itself:

 

 "Permits interception without notice to   
     the target of communications of a broadly defined "computer
    
    
  
    
  
    trespasser"
  
    
  
    
    
            with consent of owner/operator of a protected computer.   
                               "
    
    
  
    
  
    

  
    

    

    

    -- 
***************************************************
Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com
Web Services & ebXML Messaging / Registry Downloads
UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture/ ebXMl Technical Architecture 
Phone:   +1 (604) 738-1051 - Canada: Pacific Standard Time
Direct:  +1 (604) 726-3329 

    

    



    

    



    

    


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 
: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 12:15:22 PDT