The term content was put in under the original Wiretap Act of 1986, the Patriot Act merely kept the wording so if the ACLU(Al Qaida Civil Liberties Union?) has a problem with "content", why did it take them 16 years to really twist the meaning of the word content? DCS-1000 (aka Eeeevil Carnivore) and other packet sniffing technologies have the ability to only collect E-Mail headers or packet address information (aka dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information). Even something like Sniffer Pro could be set up to do this. If the LEO's collect content and don't have a wiretap order, it's illegal (just as it was before the Patriot Act). Also, the Patriot Act introduced something that actually enhances oversight by requiring the LEO's to report the identify of "any officer(s) who installed the device and any officer(s) who accessed the device to obtain information from the network, the date and time the device was installed, the date and time the device was uninstalled, and the date, time, and duration of each time the device is accessed to obtain information," it also requires "the configuration of the device at the time of its installation and any subsequent modification thereof" "and any information which has been collected by the device.". Prior to Patriot Act there was no requirement to report this.
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane Nickull
To: Brian Varine
Cc: crime@private
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [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 - 14:33:35 PDT