amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to funchords
Re: They have my full support
said by funchords  :As for the government's role, the Fourth Amendment restricts them from doing their part in this conspiracy. Not to mention other laws, regulations, and private agreements regulating AT&T's conduct. That's not true. The 4th amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. If someone voluntarily chooses to communicate over the internet, unencrypted, knowing their data is visible to anyone along 10-20 hops through companies with which they have no contractual relationship, that may be equivalent to standing on the street corner discussing personal matters, expecting privacy.
Also, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) and 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) [1] allow telcos to provide the government with data without a warrant.
Finally, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) was referenced in the so-called "immunity" deal.[2] What kind of immunity is that, when they repeat an existing law?
[1] »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
[2] »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf (page 88)
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by amigo_boy :That's not true. The 4th amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. If someone voluntarily chooses to communicate over the internet, unencrypted, knowing their data is visible to anyone along 10-20 hops through companies with which they have no contractual relationship, that may be equivalent to standing on the street corner discussing personal matters, expecting privacy. No way. The same could be said for mail. You didn't write it in code, it passes through several people's hands, therefore you need to assume anyone is reading it. Not so. It's protected by LAW. See that's the point.... they could read it.... but they are prohibited from doing so by LAW without warrants.
Same with internet information. Sure, people could read it... but they aren't supposed to. Your privacy is supposed to be protected, unless you are the topic of a criminal investigation and a warrant is in place.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by KrK :The same could be said for mail. You didn't write it in code, it passes through several people's hands, therefore you need to assume anyone is reading it. Not so. It's protected by LAW. I have no expectation of privacy with the US mail. It could be delivered to the wrong address. Dropped on the ground by the carrier. Torn open by the automated sorting machines.
What you're really saying is that you have an expectation of privacy when it doesn't really matter to you. It wouldn't be a big problem if a neighbor read the letter. It wouldn't be a big problem if employees read it when it's torn open (or stolen) at the post office. Sure, you'd huff and puff about how that's not supposed to happen. But, it wouldn't matter because you weren't really expecting privacy *when it counts*.
On the other hand, if you were plotting a biological attack, or sharing how to build a dirty bomb, you wouldn't expect privacy through the postal mail. You wouldn't expect it on the internet.
It's very hard to take people seriously that they expect internet privacy, but they don't encrypt their emails, or use https when communicating on forums, etc. They don't expect privacy. If they did, they'd encrypt. We know that's true.
Mark |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | So warrants really have no place in your world? |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :I have no expectation of privacy with the US mail. It could be delivered to the wrong address. Dropped on the ground by the carrier. Torn open by the automated sorting machines. All possible, however, just because you don't believe in expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. It's less about someone writing a letter encouraging a terrorist attack or so on (because these people most likely would communicate in secret and use codes) but more about more mundane things such as bank account numbers, payments, friends and family, medical records, and so on. The type of stuff that if it fell into the hands of an honest person accidently wouldn't be a big deal--- but could be a major problem if dishonest crooks deliberately sought such information to commit fraud or scam you.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :So warrants really have no place in your world? I'm only saying what the laws are today. You can't ignore the existing law, claiming it's something different. That's just a recipe for more of what you say is wrong. The solution is to amend the law.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :All possible, however, just because you don't believe in expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. IMO, the analogy to US postal mail is a bad one. A better analogy would be using postcards to communicate, expecting privacy. Internet traffic isn't sealed in an envelope. It's visible to a lot of people during its journey. All they have to do is look. Just like a postcard.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by amigo_boy :All they have to do is look. If they want to break the law. They need to capture and read the data. They're not supposed to by law. Just because they CAN do so does not make it legal to do so.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by Skippy25 :So warrants really have no place in your world? I'm only saying what the laws are today. You can't ignore the existing law, claiming it's something different. That's just a recipe for more of what you say is wrong. The solution is to amend the law. No, you're ignoring the laws that exist (like ECPA, which was mentioned above), which expressly create legislatively an expectation of privacy, and in fact, penalties for interception of communications.
The ECPA was passed, in part, because of the ambiguity of other wiretap laws to electronic store and forward communications.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
