Net Privacy -- Cable vs. Telecom Service

doranb writes: "Carl Kaplan has a good article this week in his CyberLaw Journal. It seems U.S. users who access the Internet via cable modems may enjoy greater privacy protections. About halfway through the article he says: 'That's because the laws governing the cable television industry, the Cable Act of 1984 and the related sections of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have privacy protections for cable subscribers that make the telephone wiretap laws seem positively pallid. Take a case where an FBI. agent wants to intercept real-time e-mail generated by a cable-modem user. Under section 551(h) of the Cable Act, the government has to secure a court order based on "clear and convincing evidence" that the target may be involved in a crime. That's a higher standard that the "probable cause&quot" required for a phone tap.' The question becomes: Should the U.S. 'dumb down' these protections to be equivalent to telecom, or should they beef up telecom's protections to be equal to the cable industry?"

Comments

Obscurity by politeness

[jesterzog]

Take a case where an FBI. agent wants to intercept real-time e-mail generated by a cable-modem user. Under section 551(h) of the Cable Act, the government has to secure a court order based on "clear and convincing evidence" that the target may be involved in a crime.

Maybe I'm almost on my own but doesn't anyone else think that expecting laws and legislation to protect people's privacy is a bit shallow? I don't like people reading my email, etc, but at the same time I think it's silly to expect that simply asking people not to will stop it from happening.

It's not even security by obscurity, it's obscurity by politeness. Even if government agencies can't monitor traffic, what about the rights of ISP's to monitor traffic passing through their system? Since the Internet is an open system, there's also not much guarantee that an ISP won't on-sell information to the government, anyway.

This is why I think Carnivore and various other privacy issues shouldn't be any more than an issue between an ISP and the government. There can be legislation to prevent governments from monitoring communications, but there's no clean way to enforce it. There's also no clean way to stop non-governement entities from intercepting information.

I think the more fundamental issue is government controls on the use and distribution of things like cryptography. Restrictions on this are a major reason why the privacy infrastructure of the net is hopeless right now, which is the reason why people are so concerned about the government monitoring their net-communications.

===

Re:Obscurity by politeness

[jesterzog]

I don't think it's a matter of protecting privacy. The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure in order to prevent government harassment of an individual. I doubt it has anything to do with the airing of dirty laundry -- though it's a nice bonus.

That's fair enough too and I definitely won't disagree with it. I just think that it's giving a false sense of security to people if they rely on legislation to protect their online privacy. I hope that relying on this type of restriction will only be a short term thing.

For one thing, the word 'unreasonable' is very subjective. Whether or not it's unreasonable for govco to monitor communications could easily depend on the context of their situation. The fact that the Internet is essentially a public forum (even though most normal people think of it as a private forum) doesn't help. A few years into the future, the net could be considered public by enough people that it wouldn't seem unusual in the slightest for anyone to read what you're intending to say in private.

Restrictions on cryptography (IMHO) are a much more fundamental right. Cryptography is what lets two individuals build a metaphorical wall around their conversation so they're no longer speaking in an open courtyard. It's also signalling a clear intention that you're intending to communicate privately, so irrespective of what happens in the future it's more likely to be considered 'unreasonable' for govco to start decrypting people's mail (without a warrent).

So far the major governments of the world have done a tremendous job of restricting the use of cryptgraphy so that it's infeasible for anyone to use it without many overheads. It's unrealistic just to tell someone to "use encryption", because the infrastructure for mass encryption has been inhibited in it's development.

What seems to be happening is that govco is still getting its way. People are more worried about governments monitoring their (essentially public) communications than they are about governments restricting the ability for people to have private conversations. As long as people aren't allowed to create their own privacy, any legislation that prevents listening in public could only be very weak.

===

Re:Obscurity by politeness

[jesterzog]

Nefarious activities of private corporations aside, the government is powerless to use any information obtained without the proper procedures in the case of a cable modem user.

I can see where you're coming from, I'm just not sure how it might hold up against good lawyers. (Although I'm not a lawyer myself.)

If a cable modem user posts a message to a public forum, can it be intercepted and used against that person? I could be missing something but personally I think it could. It's not as if anyone can't see it anyway.

So if a cable modem user posts a message that travels through a public arena (AKA the Internet), can it be intercepted and used against that person? Morally I'd say no, but technically since there's no attempt to indicate that it's not public because the Internet is a public and uncontrolled place.

How is a cable user routing something through the Internet any different from a cable user routing something through a public forum?

===

Dumb down

[graniteMonkey]

The issue that stands out the most to me here is the part about notifying a suspect before you tap them. I mean, really, as much as all you privacy fanatics out there want to download your pr0n in safety, do you honestly even want to know that letters like this are going out to your neighbors?

F.B.I., New York Branch
August 5, 2000

Mr. Galeewakitz(remember the beer commercial?),
It has come to our attention that you may be planning on committing a crime in the near future. Furthermore, our sources inform us that you may reveal some information leading to your conviction between the days of November 21, 2000 and November 25, 2000. Please be advised that under the Cable Communications Act of 1984, we are required to give notice of our intention to monitor your electronic communications via Cable Modem on these dates. Should you object to these plans, please contest the issue at your nearest Court of Law on or before October 1, 2000.

Courteously Yours,
Agent Smith,
F.B.I.

Not just new applications.... New laws

[Grant Elliott]

I'm sick of seeing laws written prior to the technological explosion made to apply to todays computer systems. Someone needs to step up and start making some new laws specific to the field. E-mail has nothing whatsoever to do with the medium by which it is transfered. In the end, they all end up going by fiber anyway. Where are the laws dealing with taping fiber lines? The telephone and television have nothing to do with dial-up and cable modems. The only similarity lies in the medium used to transer information.

This problem has frequently plaqued the judicial system lately. Intellectual property, for one, is ill-defined. Microsoft can be ordered to release their source code. That's like forcing Coca-Cola to open the vault and bring the secret formula to Pepsi's door. Yet at the same time, source code for an open-source DVD player can't be distrited because it discloses an encryption method. A merger between two telephone providers is prevented, but a merger between AOL and Time Warner isn't. Napster can be ordered to shut down until it's decided if it's within the law. That's prior retraint. It's also saying they are guilty until proven innocent.

As an analogy, I use the Second Ammendment. (I'm not taking a stance on gun control, just using an example of laws taken out of context.) People argue that they have the right to own a gun becuase of the Second Ammendment. Where are the Redcoats and the revolutions in the country-side? The Second Ammendment starts by stating that it exists becuase a millia is necessary....

Too many of our existing laws have been bent out of shape, often in contradictory manners as it suits the court. And it almost always happens at the expense of technology. The solution is not to choose which of the old laws to apply. That leaves too much up for argument. The solution is to make totally new laws specifically designed for the technological age in which we live.

Re:Not just new applications.... New laws

[Grant Elliott]

I knew I shouldn't have used the Second Ammendment thing....

Yes, you are correct in what you state. I should have been more clear. However, my point still stands in that these fears are antiquated. As a result, the applications of the ammendment must be called into question.

On another note, I think part of the problem here is that someone decided that there's no such thing as an unreasonable electronic search. Probable cause is too vaque and makes it too easy to violate one's rights. Carnivore gets by tapping everyone's lines without a warent because the FBI promises they're only reading e-mails related to persons already under suspicion. If the FBI tapped every phone line in the country, but promised only to listen to those that of persons under suspicion, they'd be shutdown in a heartbeat. That indecisiveness is the problem.

Re:Not just new applications.... New laws

[Halliday]

Grant Elliott (keysdezes@hotmail.com) states: As an analogy, I use the Second Ammendment. ... People argue that they have the right to own a gun becuase of the Second Ammendment. Where are the Redcoats and the revolutions in the country-side? The Second Ammendment starts by stating that it exists becuase a millia is necessary....

The second amendment does state: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

However, if you check into the history of this, and other Bill of Rights amendments, you will find that they were written more to defend the states, and their citizens, from the new Federal Government than to defend them against England, or any other external threat---the founders were rather paranoid about the potential dangers of governments (after all, they had seen first hand what their former government had done).

To tie this back to the topic on hand. This same paranoia is the reason for the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizure (which does use the "upon probable cause" criteria---though it goes on to state that the warrant must be "supported by oath or affirmation" [not that that means much anymore], and that the warrant must "particularly [describe] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized").

The judges..

[SpookyFish]

Clearly, wiretaps of any sort (phone, internet, etc) are a useful tool in the right hands. The trouble is, most of the decisions fall into the same category as Montana's old "Reasonable and Prudent" speed limits -- everyone has a different opinion of what that means.

While I don't want an overly sympathetic judge to grant warrants for anything imaginable, I damn sure don't want a privacy zealot hampering a terrorist investigation!

Since we can no longer trust a single judge to "do the right thing", perhaps we need to require that granting warrants (or sentences, for that matter) be decided by a panel of at least 3 judges -- in the hope that "cooler heads" will prevail.

I, for one, would sure like to see some semblance of common sense return to the legal system as a whole.

Re:Can't have it both ways

[Art Tatum]

So what's the difference between copying a bit at stealing a bit?

That wasn't what I meant. I was talking about what they're going to put on a warrant. I mean, if they suspect that you have a gun in your house that was used in a murder, they put exactly what they're looking for on the warrant; they can come take that gun but they can't take anything else, even if they find something else incriminating.

What do they do when monitoring email? They can't say "we're looking for him to say such and such a thing." They can use anything you say; it's not limitable to one piece of information.

They sell your name and phone number

[www.sorehands.com]

I have gotten credit card offers in the same name as the phone (not listed the same way as otherplaces). They also put you on telemarketer lists.

I dunno

[Tei'ehm Teuw]

As a cable modem user, after reading through the article a couple of times, I must disagree. Here's why.

Plain and simple, I have a little more peace of mind and a little more security with my connections because I run a firewall. I get randomly port scanned about 10 times a day, pinged hard and a number of other things about once a week. I know this is common with cable modems, as opposed to dial up connections, however I have better security simply because I installed a firewall, not because my provider gives me any additional level of confidence.

Re:I dunno

[SEE]

Read the article again. The claim isn't "you have better practial protection from illegal invasions" with a cable modem. It's "you have better legal protection from law-enforcement invasions."

Steven E. Ehrbar

Re:I dunno

[Tei'ehm Teuw]

Depends on how your VPN is set up. The article didn't just apply to home users surfing the net. I was refereing to corporate VPN where the firewall using IPSec or FB2 and the like are used and scanned regularly. I should have been more specific. My apologies.

The point was that even with IPSec, 128 encryption, VPN Tunneling etc, you're still fair game. The only real recouse is to lock down as tight as you can and change protocols, and IP's regularly. Wheather it's to keep the feds or the black hats from looking at your data.

A related issue

[limako]

I watched part of the session where lawmakers were giving the FBI a hard time about Carnivore (which was fun) and apparently a key issue is that there are two levels of interception with different kinds of evidence required to engage in snooping: The first is the one we're all more-or-less familiar with, which is that if the FBI believes that your communications relate to an on-going investigation, they can capture and read all of your email. But with a much lesser level of evidence, they can get an order to get all of the headers from your email! This is on the basis of a supreme court decision which determined that when you dial a phone number, you are communicating with a third party (the phone company) and have no legitimate expectation of privacy. The legislator who was questioning at this time (I don't recall his name) didn't really buy this line of reasoning and asked whether or not the FBI tells you whether your privacy has been invaded. The FBI said they'll tell you, if they actually read your email, but that if they snoop your headers, they don't have to tell you (because they haven't really invaded your privacy, becuase you have no legitimate expectation of privacy. Get it?)

My question is, if you run your own version of sendmail, you likely don't interact with a 'third party' regarding the sending of your email -- your server will contact the receiving server directly to send the mail. Under these circumstances, it seems like running your own server gives you additional grounds to argue that your communications really deserve greater protection than phone conversations. (And you're using PGP anyway, aren't you? :-)

The usual disclaimer applies -- I am not a lawyer, etc, etc.

Re:One exception...

[jonnythan]

Do what I do. Buy one of those neato cable gateway/router boxes for around $100. Hook it up to a hub and it does DHCP and is totally configurable. That way, the router is the only object on your neighborhood network, and all your computers are on the local network.

It works great :)

Re:The Obvious Answer is

[Tei'ehm Teuw]

Actually using 128 or for that matter anything over 56 is tough. I do a ton of business in China and other Aisian countries and I cant send 128. The best I can hope for is IPSec tunneled across my vpn, but even that is fair game for anyone who cares to look at it.

Honestly I'd be a little pissed if I was actually sending anything that anyone cared about. The typoes of transactions I do ar not very sexy, mainly code reviews and design documents for some offshore development we do. I suppose if it wer James Bond type stuff or black hatesque I'd care, but as it is now, it really doesn't bother me, if it's done via vable modem, IPS or VPN.

Re:Can't have it both ways

[Art Tatum]

Yes, I noticed this too. I don't believe that it's property (although your computer is property, and there have been cases where they have seized machines).

The question he raised about getting a warrant interested me, however. With a regular search and seizure, as he noted, you must specify what you're looking for. How can you specify what you're looking for with a wiretap or interception of email? Information isn't an item you can just single out and take.

Re:Can't have it both ways

[Tei'ehm Teuw]

Sure you can. Fair use etc. Also there is the Negroponti analogy of the library. You borrow a book from the library and everyone else has to wait for you to return it before you can check it out again. Borrow a book from the digital library and there is always one left. So what's the difference between copying a bit at stealing a bit?

Hrm.

[GoRK]

Well, couldn't they just tap the cable co's telcom-based uplink based on the laws?

Govt. Will Lower Cable Privacy. Duh.

[flufffy]

It's obvious that given the choice, government will lower cable privacy standards, rather than beef up telephone standards. One of the problems with the cable privacy standards is that you have to give prior notice that you will be obtaining people's records. Suspects are therefore alerted, and stop transmitting incriminating information.

The govt. will argue that this will not do, especially when the country is being threatened by all sorts of mean and nasty people (mad hackers, Chinese nuclear physicists, etc.). I guess one of the fall-outs of the fall of the eastern bloc, was that western governments need new "threats" to justify spending billions on military/spying technology. They are therefore claiming that in order to protect us all, they have to develop this technology whereby they will be able to listen to everything we say (and in fact who knows that they aren't doing so already -- we are only discussing laws here, not what they really get up to).

The reason they have let more rigourous cable privacy laws through so far, is that up until now, cable modems weren't on the radar of the types who run these agencies. Now it appears that we will all be using cable modems to talk with each other, they sure as hell will try and listen to it, whether it's legal or not.

A discussion of some of the legal implications of this is in the NY Times "Cyber Law Journal" (free reg. blah blah blah), here. According to this article, the govt. will make a play to apply telephone privacy standards to e-mail (e-mail standards are even lower), make it look as if they are increasing privacy, and then apply the whole nine yards to cable, thereby bringing a whole lot more data into their net.

Given what might or not be construed as legal activity in the near future -- listening to mp3s, wearing copyleft t-shirts, etc. -- it does not look good.

fff

Carnivore makes all access equal

[ahg]

While there may be stringent demands before the FBI can monitor your e-mail over your cable line, if the FBI gets what they want with Carnivore, the additional protections will be meaningless.

If they have the ability to monitor your cable company's backbone provider and skim through all e-mail to find yours in particular, - they've bypassed the cable companies infrastructure entirely and the requirements that go along with it.

There's nothing polite about it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that they would just frame you for something similar if they happened to get inadmissible evidence.

An unfortunate, and sad, statement about our democracy. Too bad it's the truth. Just look at OJ. He didn't get off because he was innocent, but because the LA Police were guilty of framing him; quite openly. So OJ gets off because the LA Police were idiots, and a murderer goes free.

Read stories by Philidelphia RNC protesters of police abuse in jails and on the streets.

From Independent Media Center, read: Released Dallas activist recounts jail abuses

"Scott, Ann and Milo were transporting the other 16 people in their van to the scene of an area to protest. Kendall and I were going to be support people for the group. Kendall and I were supposed to rendezvous with the group at the Greyhound bus station at 3:00 p.m., at which point we would go to the scene of the protest (two blocks away) and perform the action we had planned. The group never showed up.

Finally, at 3:30 p.m., Kendall got a phone call on his cell phone. It was Scott. He told Kendall that 15 Philadelphia State Police officers had surrounded his van and arrested everyone in it. The 19 had not committed any crimes or actions of any kind. They were not anticipating arrest."

[...]

"Despite denials by the Philadelphia police to some Green Party members from Houston and me, Scott has confirmed the civil and human rights abuse stories. He says none of the prisoners were given food for 14 hours. He says they never had bathroom breaks. He was told by jail guards that an ACLU lawyer came to represent the arrested activists at their arraignment hearings, but that he was not allowed to meet with any of the arrested activists.

Scott says that asthmatics and diabetics were not allowed to have their medicines. He told me that one diabetic woman became sick and passed out from not having had her medicine, and that the arrested activists had to chant for several hours before the nurse finally came to check on her."

From Z Magazine Online, read: Report from Philadelphia

"But whatever the number is, the reports from the inside are not good. For at least ten hours there was no food, at one point the guards had suspended bathroom ?privileges?[MS '?' for "'" retained], the legal team representing those arrested had very little access to their clients, and many of those held were told that their lawyers were not coming to see them when in fact the real story was that the authorities were not telling the legal team who was being held where. On top of this, there are reports of police and guard violence against people in custody, and at least one woman was seen being dragged naked and bleeding. Several people have been held in isolation, including those identified as organizers, and are being given more serious charges. The medical needs of some of the arrestees are not being met, including the withholding of asthma inhalers and medication for hypoglycemia."

From Salon Magazine, read: Taking it from the streets

"Valocchi [a journalist arrested while covering the protests], still wearing a red jailhouse wristband, said he did not get food for 24 hours, and did not get access to a telephone for 48 hours, even though he cooperated fully with police. In all, he was held for 49 hours. "I hear my girlfriend's been looking for me for like three days," he said. He also said there was one man in a cell near him "vomiting profusely for at least an hour before he got any medical attention. And when he did, that medical attention was a cup of juice and a sugar pill."

Valocchi said he was not the only innocent bystander thrown into jail. "There was a jogger who got yanked in. He was just a scared mama's boy in running shoes and a security shirt. I heard him on the phone with his mom, and he sounded completely terrified, telling his mom they were treating us like pigs."

"As a journalist, I've always been a big defender of the Philadelphia Police Department in general," he said. "But no more. They were completely out of control." "

And don't forget Abner Luima, the recent LA/Rampart, CA police terrorists, and the NY Central Park attacks while police stood by and watched....

When your government invades your privacy, colludes with individual private corporations to bend legislation to their favor, enacts insane intelectual property laws to favor only the elite, repeals tax laws which only the rich and elite can utilize, disarms the population, and begins unconstitutionally using brute force on citizens, you can be sure something serious is fucked up. Are you ready for American refugees?

Welcome to fascism, for real.

No!

[pb]

Not only should they not change these laws, they should use them across the board, not on just cable!

That's because it's ridiculous to make privacy laws based on the medium. If I send an e-mail over copper wire, over fiber, over the airwaves, whatever, I still just sent an e-mail. And that should have the same privacy protections, (even though sending it UNENCRYPTED over the airwaves is phenomenally stupid as well...) because I did the same thing. I just sent an e-mail.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

hello!!?

[chowda]

Should the U.S. 'dumb down' these protections to be equivalent to telecom, or should they beef up telecom's protections to be equal to the cable industry?

What kind of question is that?

Should the government take ALL your money or just half
Should you ask your parents before you buy a new TV?
Should I make sure it's ok with my dog before I got to the movies?
Should I pour hot grits down my pants?

Obviously the group that should violate privacy less than any other is the damn gobernment.... THEY WORK FOR US!!! I hate how you always have to remind people that...

Personally

[mindstrm]

I think that interception of information, in the form of telephone wiretaps, digital gathering of private email, etc... should be treated exactly like property seizure, no matter what the medium.

Even this has been taken out of context; cops can search for 'evidence'.

The original point of requiring a warrant was that the police (or whoever) would have to say 'Look, we firmly believe based on XX and XX ansd XX that Mr. So-and-so has the following items in his house. If we had these items, we could solve the crime; so the judge would order that they had permission to enter his home and search for and take away these items. Why does a judge need to do this? BEcause.. oroginall, and ideally, *NOBODY* has the right to take anything taht is yours. Nobody. THat's what a warrant is for.

Nowadays, i'ts abused beyond belief.

Up the protection of telecom

[www.sorehands.com]

Right now, the telco sells your phone information to make a profit.

We should increase the protections against govermental and business intrusions.

In the United States, we only have the freedoms that we fight for. We have surrendered them to business and the government slowly over time. We must stop.

Re:Up the protection of telecom

[Tei'ehm Teuw]

Not true,

They sell your demographic and pattern information but nothing else. Assuming they scan and sell propriatary information that you send across their networks is silly.

The Echelon crowd may, but the carriers don't. Anything remotely close to this would constitiute a wiretap and the carriers don't need the hassles. Your e-mail to your aisian hooker sweetie is just not worth the huge fines they would get slapped with if they got tagged.

Can't have it both ways

[Tei'ehm Teuw]

First off, I agree, wholeheartedly.

However your one statement:

I think that interception of information, in the form of telephone wiretaps, digital gathering of private email, etc... should be treated exactly like property seizure, no matter what the medium.

Struck me as ironic. I'll bet half the slashdot crowd is cheering along shouting "Hell Yeah!", and if you look at the whole Napster mess, there is a strange similarity. Can't have it both ways.

Telephony?

[craw]

I wonder how future laws are going to handle things like net telephony (net to phone), or net-to-net audio/video communications. It would seem that it would be "safer" to sign up for a net telephony service via a cable company. Additionally, how are the feds going to monitor/tap things like CU-SeeMe? All they are going to get is an intercepted e-mail msg saying, "Hey Joe, I'll contact you at 6 pm via computer video conferencing."

As a side note, Congress will eventually begin to explore taxing telephony; the telecos will lobby them to death.

My Web Page: Why You Should Use Encryption

[goingware]

Please read my web page on Why You Should Use Encryption.

Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow

Re:Next Question...

[rodgerd]

And what will happen? Dumb down!

There seems to be a concerted move in most Western countries to use the development of a new medium to extend state and corporate power, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Especially not when one candidate for the US presidency has 95% percent of his running fund bought by 762 people, and his opponent has gone on the record as stating that government should filter information in case people make "bad decisions" without the help of government.

I think you'll find that people with these worldviews regard the freedoms afforded traditional media a terrible mistake that can be rectified with each successive generation of new media.

(ObOffTopic Prize: Guess which US presidential candidate is which!)

--
My name is Sue,
How do you do?
Now you gonna die!

Is this a trick question???

[Stoutlimb]

I mean really, should we give more power to this government we trust absolutely to always act in our best interests?

Such spanning powers should only be enacted in times of war. (And I don't mean the war on drugs.) Thats the only time national security is really so threatened.

Just my thoughts.

Re:Neither : rewrite them!

[Tei'ehm Teuw]

The funny part is, is that the fed is continually trying to enforce and tweak laws to meet technology problems. Unfortunately the laws were written 100 years or more ago and simply do not port well to technology. The representatives and members simply do not understand. Get involved with your senator or congressman and talk to them. It's actually quite easy. I've never heard of one not being willing to meet with a consituant.

Carnivore: Spam email will define your character.

[Claudius]

However, my point still stands in that these fears are antiquated. As a result, the applications of the ammendment must be called into question.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that militias are obsolete today. To take a modern example, the Black Panthers could be perceived as a militia formed to ensure that people's rights (namely the right not to get the bejesus beat out of oneself by the pigs) were protected. As an even more modern example, the Y2K scare caused a surge in gun purchases among Americans; a great many Americans were sufficiently frightened of the possibility of chaos and the inability of their government to protect them in the event of such chaos to appreciate their Second Amendment rights. I suspect the Second Amendment/gun control issue isn't as clean an analogy as you want for this discussion.

For practical purposes the FBI covets the ability to monitor all communications to and from criminal suspects. Without Carnivore it is difficult for them to guarantee that they can do this monitoring on electronic communications with any measure of completeness. While I understand their wanting to have this capability, it doesn't mean that I accept that they should have it.

Frankly, after observing firsthand an FBI criminal investigation, I don't trust the FBI with the information they could divine about me with Carnivore, and I think that few would if they gave the matter much consideration. If I were to fall under investigation for some reason, and as part of a criminal investigation they were to scan the traffic to one of my throwaway email accounts (claudiusclaudius@yahoo.com, e.g.), then I will be profiled as a goatpr0n lover and pyramid-scheme participant based on the spam I get there. Since FBI investigative procedure as often as not involves finding a suspect as fast as possible by fitting candidates to a criminal "profile" and then digging up all the dirt they can on the suspect to (hopefully) tie him or her to the crime, I am uncomfortable with their assurances that Carnivore will not be abused. Even if not abused, I don't want the spam sent my way to affect their perception of me, and I certainly don't want my grandmother to read about my alleged goatpr0n fixation in the New York Times. Recall how Richard Jewel was pilloried in the press for his love of pr0n because law enforcement leaked their having found a skin mag in his apartment.

Clear and Convincing v Probable Cause

[MindShaper]

Does anyone know the rational for the cable law requiring the higher standard of Clear and Convincing to obtain a warrant rather than the usual Search Warrant standard of Probable Cause? The Fourth Amendment only requires probable cause, but a good rational might be used to get the standard raised to clear and convincing evidence for all internet related searches. Certainly, at minimum, the government must not be allowed to intercept email or determine what web sites you use without a warrant supported by an affidavit containing at least probable cause to believe that you are breaking the law. It should make no difference what the medium is - search your house for paper, search your ISP's server for your email or what have you. All of it, under the Fourth Amendment, should require at least that level of judicial oversight. . .

Neither : rewrite them!

[efuseekay]

The whole problem is due to the piecemeal manner the US gov tries to patch up existing laws to face the stampeding progress of communications technology (which just shows tech people are smarter than dem slow rich lawyers :))

Instead of using "medium" (i.e. cable, telco blah blah) centric laws, they should just admit that existing laws are just not good enough and sit down to rewrite a new "information-use law" that apply to "information", and not the medium that carry them.