Re: [Re: CRIME Wiretapping WiFi]

From: Duane Nickull (duane@private)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 11:30:48 PDT

  • Next message: Curd, Bill (AZ75): "RE: CRIME Wiretapping WiFi" 

    



  
  



    

    
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.
    

    
Absolutely not true.  Under the Patriot Act, Borad powers of tapping electronic
communications can be done without judicial blessing or notification;
    

    
I quote from section 217 of the Patriot Act; 2) in section 2511(2), 
    

    
 "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a       person acting under
color of law to intercept the wire or       electronic communications of
a computer trespasser transmitted       to, through, or from the protected
computer, if--                    

              `(I) the owner or operator of the protected computer 
         authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser's       
  communications on the protected computer;           
    
             

              `(II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully 
         engaged in an investigation;           
    
             

              `(III) the person acting under color of law has   
      reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the          computer
trespasser's communications will be relevant to the          investigation;
and           
    
             

              `(IV) such interception does not acquire communications 
         other than those transmitted to or from the computer          trespasser.'."
    
  
    

    
There is no mention of the need for a judge to okay this.  In fact, the PA
defines that a person may never even find out if a judge had given a blessing
to intercept legal communications and you certainly do not have the right
to review the information contained in any such application.  These are sealed
applications if need be.
    

    
A "tresspasser" is defined as a person who does not have contractual rights
to use the computer.  This is far too loose a definition since an internet
based message may travel through many different systems, some of which there
are no direct contractual obligations with end users.  ACLU is upset about
this since it is not tight enough to be meaningful (although I do not want
to speak on their behalf, that was how I intepretted their statements).
    

    
dn
    

    -- 
***************************************************
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 - 14:25:39 PDT