Slashdot Mirror
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"" 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?"
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.
===
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.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
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.
"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." -Richard Feynman
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.
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.
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
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...
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
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.
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.
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. . .