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

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.