Key words there....Computer Trespasser. This doesn't mean they can just go out willy nilly and start tapping everyone. You must be a computer trespasser. Just because my mail travels over some obscure router, it doesn't make me a trespasser. A criminal would love to see the FBI tap a router that an ISP has given permission to because the target didn't have contractual rights....all of the evidence would be thrown out. I subscribe to an ISP and have contractual rights (limited albeit) to their system...they buy bandwidth from another bigger ISP so I would fold into that contract (and so on and so on). The FBI cannot tap my voice phone under the auspices of the computer trespasser provision. Fact remains, LEO's still need judicial authority to conduct a wiretap.
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane Nickull
To: Brian Varine
Cc: crime@private
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [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 - 15:38:22 PDT