Slashdot Mirror
Save a Chatlog... Go to Prison?
Alien54 writes "You are engaged in a chat session with some friends and colleagues, when one of them makes a witty remark or imparts a pithy bit of information. You hit CTRL-A and select the conversation, then copy it to a document that you save. Under a little-noticed decision in a New Hampshire Superior Court in late February, these actions may just land you in jail. New Hampshire is "two-party consent state" -- one of those jurisdictions that requires all parties to a conversation to consent before the conversation can be intercepted or recorded. The decision is the first of its kind to apply that standard to online chats, and the ruling is clearly supported by the text of the law. But it marks a blow to an investigative technique that has been routinely used by law enforcement, employers, ISPs and others, who often use video tape or othermeans to track criminals in chat rooms. This also has troublesome implications [for employers] monitoring of email and other forms of electronic communications."
MIST : May I Save This ?
theefer
imo this is a good thing
:'(
too often ive had logs float around!
Shame I'm in Korea now
www.coattails.net/forum
I wonder if Hotwarg vs. the US from 1967 will have a direct bearing on this - it addressed a very similar issue for phone conversations.
Well, I guess I better turn off Trillian Pro's logging by default....or at least have a macro sent to them when I start the conversation...
GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
...from my teletype. LOL. Laters.
...a "chat" or "conversation" include a bulletin-board-like site like Slashdot?
Am I violating it by saving this webpage (once it has gained enough commentary)? How about a mirror of it?
Have employees sign a paper saying they consent to email monitoring and the legal issues will disappear. Also, before entering a chat room, the user could have to check a box agreeing that conversations could be recorded. Maybe it's more complicated than that, I'm not sure if you need to acquire consent on a per-conversation basis or not.
you better not be contributing to bash.org.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Consent is so overrated.
This is probably the least troublesome aspect of this particular issue. Employers should not be allowed to track peoples personal communications in any way.
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
Every web application I create logs transactions, IP/datestamp, and chat transcripts (when applicable). If there's an information leak somewhere, or a crime has been committed, we can track it down.
In Texas, as long as one party knows the conversation is being recorded, it's legal.
As long as you're not keylogging someone else's conversation, doing what the article mentions is legal.
But one question: Why is this under the Science category and not under Privacy?
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
so, Posting IM conversations with random morons can get people in trouble? Where's the justice?
IRC is like having a conversation in public (heck, on a stage with a microphone) & I would think that it wouldn't be subject to such a law.
ON DELETE CASCADE
iChat for Mac OS X has a feature that allows you to log all IM conversations automatically. I wonder if this kind of online communication is included in the NH decision.
All irc servers could just have a standard disclaimer in the motd stating that all conversations may be recorded blah blah blah...
davej
Some chat software automatically saves chatlogs. ICQ and Yahoo allow offline messaging, and act as 3rd-party brokers of the conversation. I can't see this standing up under further judicial scrutiny.
Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
Some programs (IRC, MSN right now come to mind) both auto save logs in many cases. Doesn't this mean we're all in trouble?
Who ever knew a MS product would break the law...
--- [Insert intresting Sig here]
This could have consequences for sites like bash.org
Underholdning.info
If the decision stands, do we wring our hands over the "loss of a freedom"? Or if the decision is overturned, do we wring our hands over "unprecedented police powers"?
Only certain thing is that Bush will be blamed for it either way...
Most IM software has a feature that turns on logging. I would think it would be assumed that someone in chat is keeping a log. It seems common sense not to say anything incriminating over chat. At least to me...
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Does anyone really think that this will make it impossible for police to record chats? They can tap a phone line without the consent of either party, so why wouldn't they be able to do the same here?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
This just goes to show how out of touch the current lawmakers are with techonology.
ICQ keeps a message history,
One of the reason I only use it. I have a copy of every conversation I have ever had over the past
6-7 years.
And doesn't the NSA listen to anything and everything???
Whoa! What will happen to bash.org then? :P
Are you going to find all parties in large chat rooms to ask their permission? What if some of the participants are outside state lines or out of the the country? What if one party is using a proxy?
Under the Sarbanes-Oxley act employers are required to monitor and archive all electronic communications. There was an article about this the other day over at El Reg.
So, in New Hampshire, it sounds like employers must either not comply with Sarbanes-Oxley or must be guilty of illegal wiretapping. Or am I missing something?
I use gaim, and have been getting it to log my chats for over a year now. If I started the conversation with someone then I can sort of understand that they might not want it to be recorded. But I think if they started the conversation with me then recording should be fair game.
kyjello is too damn smooth to make a signature.
This sounds an awful lot like a Your Rights Online topic.
This is the NFL, which stands for "Not For Long" if you keep making those bulls*** calls.
This isn't to much of a blow to employers. Most employees can be fired at the discretion of the employeer. If they know you are doing it then that is enough. They don't have to go through any legal system or have proof that is legally bound.
Evolution or ID?
bash.org better watch out, here come the subpeonas for all those users who want their dumbass quotes removed =)
So, online games with logging to file features (Everquest, SWG, DAoC, etc) would fall under this ruling too? /tell features in the games should be considered as private as a chat session, this must suck.
I know people that have logged to text files and then to data base everything they have said and had said to them for 5+ years in some of these games. Considering that
Also considering that techsupport often asks for logs when reporting bugs/unusual behavior or cheating, would that make them accomplices after the fact?
This is probably already commonly covered with most employer Internet Usage Polices that employees are typically required to sign. I know that, with the larget companies for whom I've worked, I had to sign this policy that notified me that they could read my e-mail, monitor my Internet Usage and pusnish me for disobeying the policy. I'd bet this is enough notice to cover a case like that described in the blurb.
1.) Kings dominate earth
2.) Kings useless, presidents and prime ministers dominate the earth
3.) Presidents and P minister useless, lawyers dominate the earth
4.) Lawyers useless, Geeks dominate earth.
5.) Geeks useless, machines dominate earth.
Anything that's public is takeable. If the police want someone's fingerprints, they may not be able to get them without a warrant, but they can snag the softdrink the person just tossed in the trash. The chat room is like a piece of paper someone has written a letter on then tossed out: now public domain. Once the person leaves a chat room (especially in something like IRC), the list is still there logged to your computer until you close the screen.
Interestingly enough, what about programs that log the chats automatically? I would have an easy time (I think) defending that trillian was logging without my knowledge as opposed to me physically copying a conversation without the other party's consent.
How so?
TK
They are missing one crucial point here I think. A chat log is (usually) just a plain text file of the contents of a chat session. A file like this could easily be created by hand by anyone, at any time. Even when it's something more sophisticated than a text file, it can still be faked pretty easily.
So wouldn't a log like this be completely inadmissable in any court anyway? Wiretaps have been used for years on the premise that audio analysis can be used to unerringly establish the identity of the speaker. Chatlogs are simply a whole other kettle of fish.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
I maintain a file, quotes.txt, in my home directory. When I read something catchy, pithy or-- especially-- wise, I copy the quote to the file (with a citation of who said it).
Evidently I am now a freaking criminal for this?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
This won't really be much of a problem, just add a few lines to the employment contract/agreement/whatever and employers will be set...now getting current employees on board might be an issue, but a smart employer would have reserved the right to modify such an agreement at any time anyways, so only law-enforcement needs to be updated, or am I missing something?
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
A videotape of the computer screen showing the chat conversation taking place, constitutes irrefutable evidence since the jurors can plainly see the person typing on the keyboard at that end, and the text of the conversation scrolling along.
A simple textfile of the chat log can be far too easily fabricated, tampered with, manufactured false evidence, etc, and will get torn apart by the other side's attorney in court.
New Hampshire residents won't have to {ASSASSINATE BUSH} worry about the Feds going after them for {ANTHRAX} setting off {A BOMB} certain designated keywords in IRC.
This could be taken care of with a little work on the app. Perhaps have a setting that says "I allow others to record my conversations". Have it checked by default. Kind of like an EULA option.
If a remote user hits ctrl-a, it only highlights text where the other person has the "record" option checked. This might actually find some fans in the tinfoil hat crowd since it would be a kind of privacy measure.
Of course it wouldn't prevent screenshots.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Is AOL's AIM with its Save function aiding criminal action?
How soon until we see (much like US vs Non-US crypto) NH version of AIM vs US Version vs DC (posts all conversation to Drudge Report)?
Information is recorded or intercepted in the process of transmission and reception. Thousands of routers, modems, disks and memory modules have recorded and intercepted "conversations" between second and third parties, quintillions of times.
But I imagine it bolsters the authenticity of a chat log...which could be altered by an unscrupulous marmot.
As I live in a state that does not require two party consent it does not really matter. Where I am it is perfectly legal to record conversations with people with out the little beep every few seconds. In fact if Monica had lived in MN she would have been fine.
IANAL but any bets on how this would apply to chat logs?
Doesn't iChat have the ability to log all of your conversations? Hope that doesn't land Apple in hot water as well.
The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves. I often like to think what the modern world would be like in America if these men were still holding sway.
Who on earth would think you can type or write something down and it NOT be recorded? That is what you are doing -- recording your words onto a medium.
And now that I think about it, the original law this is based on is also pretty lame. If you don't want someone to record what you're saying, don't talk to them.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Most IRC clients will buffer quite a few (thousands) of lines in RAM. Is this sort of recording different? What if it gets swapped to disk? What about systems with long average uptimes--if I just leave my IRC window open for a month (or leave it up through hibernate/resume cycles), have I recorded it? What if I have that conversation on a laptop, and try to get it admitted as evidence without ever powering it down? ("Hurry up, Your Honor, klaptop says I've got 30 minutes of battery life left!") What if I hibernate it and resume it in the courtroom? Then it's technically been written to a permanent storage medium, but only as an extension of a volatile one.
The law needs clear definitions to work well... I don't think it's a blow to privacy rights for participants to assume that anyone party to a text conversation can record it.
Spoken conversations are by definition transient--the sound is gone as soon as it happens. The law makes sense for those. But for text conversations, with backscroll and long buffers, it quickly becomes silly.
Apparently unless one party is in law enforcement. Do laws like this one apply to communication tracking systems used by law enforcement WITHOUT A WARRANT?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
America© Home© Of© The© Free©
Is email considered a telecommunications medium? If I'm a two-party consent state, and someone sends me an email without included or implied permission to save it, am I required to delete it from my server and my hard drive after I've read it?
Hey, couldn't this be used to fight off an RIAA lawsuit? Could making a record of a Kazaa user's IP address without that user's consent be illegal in a two-party consent state?
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
I wonder how this applies to GAIM's logging feature, which I believe is now on by default. Every conversation is logged, automatically. However, the general AIM populace is used to using a client where automatic logging isn't an option.
I don't see how saving a correspondence in which you are a participant can be illegal. Next they will be telling us not to remember anything either.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
Can't snoop network traffic without permission if someone is having a conversation. Does that apply to other forms of internet communications? IRCs? FTP? talk?
I view online messaging much like I do with email, if it's on my computer, I can keep it. Both parties wanted to talk as there was implied consent. Even if it's just to tell someone to *#@! off.
Does the server have to be in New Hampshire? The saver? The savee?
This is completely moronic, of course. What about posession of tools that auto-save conversations (say, ICQ?) Surely this must be illegal in New Hampshire! What about email communication?
Implicit consent should (almost?) always be assumed in communication of this type.
Are we going to see more disclaimers when we log into chat servers? "By logging in, you hereby consent etc etc; if you don't like it log out now".
If the program has a "Save function" then the Judge ruled the user has a lower expectation of privacy than if the program doesn't have a "Save function".
The case at hand involved software that didn't have a built-in save function, but the cop used a camcorder and another software package to record the session.
--Rob
Here in Kentucky we are a 1-party consent state even regarding telephone taping. So screw them. Ill copy and save and tape any conversation im involved in even as a passive listner (excepting for wiretap violations which is federal) without worry. :P
nana
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
In my opinion if it is not it should be illegal wiretapping if a law enforcement official does this copying without a warrant anyhow. I don't see how it hurts law enforcement at all.
Got Code?
This is downright welcome! Some portion of you are going to consider this flamebait, but shouldn't online chat be held to the same restrictions that other conversations are?
If we had the easy ability to do audio searches, would there be phones that recorded a history of the last n hours of conversation you had? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should...
i use msnplus and i've set it up so that it automatically save all the chat logs, :'(
hey but i need all those chat logs, how else will i remember what my boss asked me to do ?
Trillian (I think by default) is setup to save a log of all chats. Better make sure the person I am chatting with is not from New Hampshire: AYINH? (Are you in new hampshire?)
- Do not paint -
Seems like this may have had some impact 15 years ago if everybody agreed to it, but now it either won't last in the face of the obvious ubiquity of silent loggers such as Trillian (as has been mentioned before), or it will only be selectively enforced when they want to enforce it.
Just the way I see it.
What about those of us that use AIM mod's like DeadAIM that automatically log all conversations?
This whole thing is ridiculous. Some IM systems (MS Messenger comes to mind) automagically save all of your chats, whether you specify it or not. In fact, prolly most users don't even realize that they are being saved. Are all users of that software to be immediately jailed?
It's illegal to snoop other folks network traffic unless you have a legal reason to be snooping:
a) You're law enforcement with a warrant
b) You're an admin doing network maintenance where the snooping is incidental to performing your work.
--Rob
The way I see it, if someone types a message and clicks the 'send' button, then it should be the equivalent of writing something down and then posting it to the other person. And in most cases it is the equivalent of writing a message on a postcard and posting it...
I'm no expert on the American legal system, but I'd assume that you're allowed to keep any correspondence you receive...how is this any different...
"...one of those jurisdictions that requires all parties to a conversation to consent before the conversation can be intercepted or recorded."
Police: Can we tap your phone?
Drug dealer: No.
Punter: No.
Police: Uh, ok then. Have a nice day.
Yup. That'll work.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
How does this apply to someone using a printer instead of a monitor, such that the printer prints out every line of the conversatino as it happens?
I mean I'd be such an idiot if it was evidence from my computer that put me in jail. I just hope my lawbreaking cohorts do the same.
I live in a single-consent state, so this isn't currently a great problem for me. (A great problem for America, though, surely!)
Couldn't the detective (I call this detective a him, like in the FA) just speak the conversation into a tape recorder? Then he is creating a recording that only he is a party to, and the veracity of the evidence hinges on whether he is doing an accurate job recounting the screen conversation. In fact, why can't he videotape himself writing down the words on paper and speaking into a tape recorder and typing onto a screen? Then he has documentation of at least two legal forms of recording (he is the only party, remember), and oops, just by mistake the camera caught the screen too, if any of his testimony needs to be corroborated.
Why not just force another detective to be in the room with him and initial his printout, after he prints the conversation, and leaves it on the screen for comparison?
Dorks.
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
Not really. Check the contract you signed with your employer. When are we geeks forming a political global syndicate?.
HAD
Perhaps you can have a consent system in place. Everytime someone initiates a message with you (or vice versa), you paste: "This message may be recorded for quality assurance. If you rather not be recorded, please disconnect immediately."
-----
Feeling ugly? Check this
1. Move to New Hempshire
2. Post an overused joke to $slashdot
3. Sue all $slashdotters, I don't like your $browser caching my comments
4. Profit!!!!!!11
* Replace $slashdot, $slashdotters, $browsers with whatever online communities and softwares suitable.
Seriously, this law is nonsense. Anyone with some clues about the Internet knows his comments are often stored in the receivers' computers, whether purposefully or not. If this law is carried out on Slashdot we can all expect reading a lengthy EULA before we can read and post any comments here.
For the same reason people put locks on their doors, issue paper receipts for electronic voting, or make random phone calls to a spouse on a business trip.
If someone really wants to break into your house, rig an election, or cheat on you, they will find a way. But by raising the bar of what is required, you prevent the casual instances where doing so would be convenient.
A video log could still be faked, but it is no longer a temptation of convenience (a couple of key strokes and done). And keep in mind that for evidence to be useful, it has to stand up in court. Something difficult to fake will be less likely to be discounted than something very easy to fake.
I don't see how this decision is going to stick. I really don't think it will. Has the EFF gotten involved in this yet?
I live in NYS and have my IM client set up to log ALL conversations. I consider it no different than saving an email.
People need to learn that ANYTHING they put on the internet might become public and/or stay there forever.
Of course it sounds like NH is screwed up anyways. Being able to record a conversation without someone else's knowedge is a standard CYA procedure. If it was easy, I would set it up so that all my phone conversations are automatically recorded as well.
It would be really useful, especially when a certain cellphone provider keeps sending you bills for an account AFTER you cancelled their service. How the hell is one supposed to bust jerks like that without recording the conversation?
Laws like this only encourage criminal conduct.
Life is too short to proofread.
If caught, one could deny that the alleged log is a true record of the 'conversation'. In the absence of traits, such as the sound of a voice, the only way the other party could prove the authenticity of a type written log would be to produce their own illegal recording.
The law enforcement people are going to squeal like pigs over this because it'll prevent them from trolling.
They don't have anything approaching good cause for a warrant, so they troll trying to entrap somebody into giving them a reason to get a warrant.
Because investigating real crime is hard work compared to chatting on IRC.
--Rob
I don't think this law would apply to instant messaging or e-mail. Think about real life ways of sending text from one party to another, such as mail. Do you think that you would be held accountable for keeping copies of mail sent to you without informing the sender?
This comment was thought up very late at night and does not necessarily reflect my views at a more reasonable hour.
What happens if your messenger automatically logs converstations? I'm betting that companies will start putting something in their TOS saying that you agree to have your conversations automatically logged or something to that effect.
The test seems to be whether the recording capability is part of the instant messaging software itself (in which case it may be legal to record) or whether it is an add-on, and therefore an unlawful recording.
So the Slashdot article is somewhat skewed. The chatlog isn't illegal. And I wouldn't be too upset, since the process the officer used involved video screen capture, as well as cutting and pasting, to get into a final document.
As far as chatlogs go, it's generally understood that written correspondence (mail, etc.) is owned by the one who receives it. I'd be surprised to see chatrooms fall outside that rule of thumb.
How can asynchronous communication be wiretapped?
>MIST: May I Save This?
CROW: No, you may not!
JOEL: Now Crow, don't forget, the user has rights too.
TOM: Nein! Jauhrtausand hand und garnele! Das userkind - they have no rights in this police state!
JOEL: Tom, that has absolutely no releveance whatsoever.
TOM: But it sure is fun to say it!
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
In Soviet Russia, the conversation records YOU!
I don't know what the case law on this is, but is it totally accepted that electronic chat can be classified in the same way as a phone conversation? Because if you look at it a different way, it could be construed as sending emails back and forth between two parties.
And last I heard, you didn't need someone's consent to save things that they send you.
What does this mean for ICQ's chat history? The program automatically saves all previous conversations. Many people do not know that this feature exists (yes everyone here does but there are others out... you IT guys know it). Does this mean that i will need to disable it or declare it being active?
--Democarcy will fail; over half the population is below average
What if I, over here in California (still a 1-party state, I think) logs somebody over there in New Hampshire. Am I breaking the law? Will I be extradited to New Hampshire for prosecution? Or is it only if I use the log as evidence in a trial? Only a NH trial or any trial anywhere? Hmm..
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Modify your IM client so that when you start a new session with someone a message is automatically sent saying:
"BY ENTERING THIS CHAT, YOU ARE AWARE THAT WHAT YOU SAY CAN BE RECORDED AND SAVED TO DISK. IF YOU DO NOT CONSENT, PLEASE END THIS CHAT."
IANAL, but I think this would be sufficient under the current laws that we have that regulate wiretapping.
Maybe I should code up a patch for GAIM...
I beg your pardon. I think it reasonable that private conversations be private and that is a reasonable expectation in this country. We have checks and balances on our government and law enforcement and should have more on our employers. The are getting far too many rights to monitor us. Who is watching them? There is a principle that you can not be forced to incriminate yourself. You don't even need to testify on your own behalf in a trial. You are not required to tell the truth except under oath, just ask any car or insurance salesman or the current administration.
I for one do not want to live in a fish bowl like in Catch 22, but we seem to be heading in that direction, and will arrive unless we all stand up and say no. I applaud the court for making the proper judgement that upholds the law not only to the letter but in the spirit of the law.
"as part of his official duties, Detective Frank Warchol of the Portsmouth, New Hampshire Police Department signed on to a chat room on America Online, posing as a fourteen-year-old girl "Okay, repeat after me..
There are few horny women in chat rooms.
There are fewer horny non-male women in channel.
The are even fewer horny non-male under 50 years of age women in channel.
Okay.. that leaves 1 left..
MOM! WTF are you doing online!!!
Exactly what constitutes recording? Saving on magnetic media? Printing on paper? Storage in RAM? Storage in SRAM? Storage in human memory?
The answer is important, since chat software "saves" conversations in RAM, at least as long as the chat window is open. I can preserve a record of a chat session for as long as I want by simply not closing the window. Given that fact, I would expect that all chat sessions are recorded, and therefore use of chat software implies consent by all parties to record the session.
I suppose that if you're really concerned about this, you could strengthen that case by transmitting a statement immediately after starting a chat session along the lines of "This chat session may be recorded. If you do not consent to the recording of this session, disconnect from this session now."
OK. So all my irc logs are illegal, the irc server's logs are illegal and fbi's warez channel logs are illegal ?
Maybe just a simple popup in AIM/Jabber/ICQ/Whatever is all that is needed:
l33tH@X0r wants to save this conversation.
Will you let them keep a copy?
[Yes] [No]
They run a sock-puppet site where they have all sorts of out-of-context IRC quotes to prove that critics are eeevil beings sent by Xenu.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
.. as soon as you type in the input line in the program and hit enter. The rest is a matter of *time shifting* and not necessarily limited to the "screen captures" mentioned in the article.. If this law was strictly enforced, chat itself could be conceivably illegal. And how about newsgroups? Similar there as well. email, etc.
big ole can a wurmes here....
I really don't think this will pose much of a problem to employers, since they will undoubtedly already have a clause in either their computer/Internet use policy or your contract stating that either all of your work is the property of the Company, or any communication using Company-owned computing resources is the property of the company. And if you don't agree, then you either don't sign or don't use the Internet at work.
Of course, in a smaller company where this is undefined, this kind of monitoring may pose a problem under this law... but otherwise I think that police surveillance is what is primarily going to be affected, not employer policies.
Seriously, how is a chat session any different than an email conversation, apart from the lag time between send and receive? We aren't talking real-time communication, the person typing the message still has to hit a key to send it. Now if it were real-time, where I could see the person's message as they typed it, then it might be a different story. But it isn't.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
IIRC apples ichat does this by default. looks like its time to call grandma and alert her to the breaking of the law by using that functionality.
<ranting>
seriously now, what are govt officials thinking? more recently about the gmail privacy issue (which is only made an issue by folks who dont understand it) and now this sillyness? and why is this post under the science section? yro maybe?
argh!
</ranting>
from the article: " Why should e-mail be any different? Why should VOIP? Why should IM? IRC? SMS? Either communications are private, or they are not. To the Internet, packets is packets. Maybe its time for the law to make up its mind."
IMO these mediums -should- be different bc they have different acuisition(sp?) methods.
lets take email and snailmail for example
to open another person mail is a crime. it involves using your hands or some tool to break the paper/cardboard that the item arrived in and view its contents.
to open another persons email is an invasion of privacy which may involve simply turning the computer on. (auto email checking that puts a cute icon on teh screen, grandma clicks it and voila)
IMO we need laws that accomodate and understand the technology, not make some half arsed RL relation to it.
besides, if you think that your plaintext sent IM messages are ensured to be private to only you and your intended recipient then you really need to learn about el interneto. if ppl want that then use encryption!
So if you use it to save driving directions or whatever, you may be breaking this law as well.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
I am posting anonymously because I don't need any more things happening due to this.
I was almost expelled from college last week.
I had been keeping an online blog, where I occasionally ranted about my crappy roommates. Well, they found it. I never said "I am going to kill my roommates", but I did say things such as "I hate them and wish they would die".
I spent two hours in the vice president of the universities office, along with a psychologist, where they tried to decide whether or not I was crazy. After I detailed and explained everything to them, they decided I was right, and that my roommates really were jerks.
They stayed up all night, listened to loud music, had nasty slutty girls over all the time, are horrible alcholics, never went to class, fucked their girlfriends on the couch even if they know I would be back from class any time, and so on.
The VP decided to move me in with soom good friends who happened to have an open bedroom in their university supplied apartment. So, I got to move in with my friends, and my old roommates are now under extra supervision, since they turned in a paper with all the information about all the drinking that goes on at their place, to the university.
Oh, and those bastards hid all their booze the day I got kicked out, along with all the shotglasses. I had some very very nice hand blown shot glasses, that I'm probably going to see again.
So yeah, this stuff isn't cool, I almost got expelled from a very good university because of semi-anonomously posting my opinions in a blog.
is all you have to have. I would be interested on how this would work out if a person from a state where it is legal to do this talks to a person from a state where it is not. I mean after I would not be breaking the law in my home state to do this as long as I am a part of the conversation.
I believe that online chatting is analogous to the beep on the phone. I think the argument should be that online chatting is implied consent to record. The -vast- majority of chat programs save the chat logs, sometimes automatically (ie gaim). I think if the court is going to rule that ctrl+a pasting is recording, then the network card and associated drivers are also recording, though deleting as it passes. When does having something in memory become storage? Is there a nanosecond clause to that law? (If you have the data in memory for more than one ns, then you are copying/recording?) If so, then what about video buffers? It stays in the video buffer as 'text', or in the memory behind the textbox values until the window is closed. Anyway, like I said, i think the chat box should be the beep.
...is a failure to communicate.
This really only applies to police making logs of chats and then whether or not those logs hold up in court.
You aren't going to be prosecuted for keeping logs of all your online chat sessions. That is not what is in question here. Only time it matters is if your chat log could somehow be admissible as evidence in a criminal or civil court case.
I also doubt you'd get in trouble for posting bits and pieces of a chat log on the web somewhere either. Anyway, I wouldn't go posting "private" conversations online without all parties' consent. It's rude to do otherwise.
Also note, the article isn't about IRC here, but ICQ and AOL which are one on one chat clients for the most part. The law is talking about "private" conversations.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
It was interesting to read about the effect that default logging had the cases, but what can we look forward to in the future? Will the creators of IM software be considered liable if they don't implement a two-way consent system into logging of conversations?
And how would it apply if you aren't aware at the time that the person in the conversation lives within a state/province/country that requires two-way consent?
ha ha! another Mistie! ;D
I'll look up a cite later this morning.
Do I have permission to log conversations if I'm out of state (or out of country, as the case would be here)? I mean, if I live in Norway, and the IRC server is in New Hampshire, the recipient in New Hampshire (if I even know that, on many IRC networks I wouldn't even know the IP or location of the recipient), am I then in some way committing a crime in NH, USA?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This also has troublesome implications [for employers] monitoring of email and other forms of electronic communications.
So essentially this is a Good Thing (tm), eh? Why is the one of submitter so sucking concerned?
I'm in the UK so it probably will not affect me, but how does this law interact with this ? IM Monitoring
Uh, no, Sarbanes-Oxley is the law o' the land rite here in the good ole US of A
..another clause that the *employee* must inform and get consent from all parties that he engages in conversation with, that the communication is monitored. Since the employee is part of the firm, the firm can claim clean hands "according to company policy, consent should have been acquired".
Of course, it's CYA of the worst sort. But it should let the company continue monitoring employees just like they do today. If someone complains, well you can probably blame the employee (read: scapegoat).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Where does the "chat" happen?
is it in the jurisdiction of the server, or the chat client, if in the client side, which client? the operator of the IRC channel for instance.
If its the operator, which one?
as is said, the devil is in the details.
Now, IANAL but we covered this at a previous place of employment that used to record all customer conversations. In Texas, if one party is aware of the recording they can record it. But that still doesn't allow them to broadcast it. If you record a conversation in this manner, you can use it internally or paraphrase comments from it - kind of a personal memory aid - but you don't even have the right to resend it to another party like you would if both parties were aware that it was being recorded.
IIRC, anyway. It was a few years ago.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Do you then say e-mail must be deleted and not saved without explicit permission? What about letters and the postal service. Is anyone keeping old letters guilty of "logging" the conversations. Written media surely should not apply to these rules since by definition it is "logged" at least temporarily as soon as it is sent.
Do you think there's a problem with editing (digital?) video-recordings of a chat window with lines of text coming from the bottom up? HA! Think again! ;P
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
This site has a bunch of chat logs, with pedophiles they chated with online. I don't think both parties consented to this.
First off, a step for basic rights. the right to tell your buddy something and not have it come lashing back to haunt you.
Second, any company with computers that is not having their employess sign an internet use agreement (saying the computers and network and internet access belong to the company and you WILL be monitored on every aspect of use), is not going very far, and deserves the abuse they will get.
Any school or business these days has Use Agreements that make the law void in this case because the employee is agreeing to proper use as set by the employer.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Interesting. NH has been selected by the Free State Project as the target state. I wonder what this means for them?
"expectation of privacy"
In a public forum, there is no expectation of privacy. People may record what you say. Get over it.
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
All communications from/to anyone in a company are to be logged. Email, IM, chat etc are logged for auditors and lawyers perusal. Otherwise that is where the important memos will be posted.
to be honest... i like it, and i wish we had the same laws. there is no problem in asking the other person if you can record a chat (a bot could even initiate conversations with the warning); if it gives companies less right to store information about me (against my knowledge), then im all for it!
so, is *any* IM conversation bound by this? who's to know if you're talking on IRC and have the "log all conversations" box checked, you'd be breaking the law if someone was in that channel was chatting from that state; regardless of if you were even talking *to* that person.
this seems whack.
cvb
free ipod and free gmail!
What if I don't give consent for the court reporter to record what I say at my trial for the same offense?
-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
When you're using a chat, the conversation is already captured and recorded.
It's merely deleted when it reaches the end of the buffer. But if the buffer is a ream of tractor-feed paper, it's only deleted when the paper is destroyed.
Lawyers really need to learn how computers work, and stop mooting themselves by presuming technical unrealities.
I guess iKatun, our art collective, will go to prison too, then. Our latest project "reimaginings" lets people upload chat logs and see them reenacted with text2speech --- www.turbulence.org/Works/reimaginings/ who knew!
By viewing contents on [your website here], you consent to monitoring and logging.
Looks like a universal EULA similar to the above is needed just to not find oneself in violation of the law for logging anything.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
But, presumably if I worked in New Hampshire and signed such an agreement, then used a chat client while at work to chat with someone else (I'll even be good enough to say that the other person is in New Hamphire and so is the server), if the company saves and monitors my chat, it is still only a one party approval since the people I am chatting with have no idea and no consent to be "recorded".
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
He may be right, but he's off-topic with a PLUS FIVE INSIGHTFUL? How does this add ANYTHING to the discussion?
May the mods who did this get meta-moderated to shit...
I have always been interested that recording a conversation with out any phone, computer, etc.., is quite legal. WITH OUT any concent.
Is it just me or is this hypocritical? Not that it is surprising that the law would be such
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
On MSN Messenger (tool of the devil) and ICQ, you have to be accepted by me to talk to me. That means that if you are talking to me, I either added you and you agreed (so you consented) or you added me and said OK (so I consented to something you asked for).
:)
Now, if you added me onto your list, or I added you onto mine and you accepted, then that's almost a contract saying "fine, you asked for it" and indicating a great deal of consent.
So, in other words, STFU government
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
Or an acronym and a word if you want to get technical... PATRIOT ACT. With each succesive version passed the requirements for wiretap warrents wither away further. Somehow I see this being directly addressed in the PATRIOT Act 3.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
Have a notice when one communicates:
"Anything communicated may be saved, cached, etc for later reading. If this is unacceptable please leave session now!"
I'm using a real old pos computer and software to get on a chatroom using command line interface and a TELETYPE TERMINAL (such as an ASR-33!)
Am I illegal?
I had a friend of mine, call me up last week. She was all upset on the phone and asked how well I could "wipe" a harddrive so there is no more data in in no matter what. At first, I wasn't going to do it. After she explained the story, I grabbed my tomsroot bootdisk and headed over to issue the dd command :P
... it was a typical 14 year old conversation. You know those, talking about sex, but in very odd terms.
... even durring times when its beyond your control.
... come on, lol.
Apparently, her son was talking to some girl in his class
Needless to say, at some point, his father (who doesn't live with them) was able to install some VNC software. He was monitoring his conversations and turned on the logging. When he seen what was going on, he called Dyfus. (Division of youth and family services) Which, one a side note for those who don't know. Is a child protection agency that is more intrested in prosecuting parents for anything they can, and ripping familys apart. They are NOT there to help you, only hurt you
My friend recived a call from Dyfus which informed her that the next day to be home and they are coming to confiscate the computer for an investigation. On another side note, they should be required to have a search warrent for this, some idiot gave them full access to peoples homes without a search warrent. Which in some cases is good, but not all.
They didn't give all the details to why they where doing this, but she already knew since the father was complaining about it a few days before.
I told her to press charges against the father for unauthorized access to the computer. But, the local police department refussed to file the charges.
Without getting too off topic, they could have charged her with endangering a minor if they had gotten access to those logs. Which, honestly is total bullshit. Thats what 14 year old kids do
until (succeed) try { again(); }
I would think that saving an online chat would fall under the same category as tape recording a conversation.
In Indiana, it is legal to tape record a conversation, even without having that beeping sound. I found this out from a law professor here at IU in Bloomington. Other states have different restrictions on it.
I'm from another country. I aways keep logging enabled everywhere. What happens if I'm chatting with someone who happens to be from that state? (How I'm even supposed to know that law exists?)
Obviously I can remember a conversation without anyone's consent, so this seems to be a simple attack against storage format. I can remember it in my head, because... what? Because that format is inaccessible? But I have to have your permission if I plan to use any kind of accessible memory? What if my memory becomes accessible? Or what if I simply want to record my entire life on accessible media? I guess I just don't understand how there is ever any right to privacy in any communication. It's c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n, for goodness sake. The entire purpose is to turn a private, inaccessible thought into a public, accessible speech act.
FUD. This law requires that both parties consent to monitoring. That's what an employee agreement is- a documented form of consent.
This is still a State jurisdiction issue, just like the recording of phone calls. In Texas, only one party of a conversation has to be aware of the recording of any conversation, and that party is not required to present the fact of the recording to the other party. In the State for this current article, the State Law specifically requires all parties consent. What it really comes down to is that we all need to be aware of the laws within the State in which we live, becasue if there is anything proven in every court in every state and nation on the planet, it is that ignorance of the law does not defend you from its enforcement.
Would this also affect the ability of law enforcement to sniff email, which could also be considered a type of conversation?
http://bike.stu.ph/rides - free GPS routes available for Garmin, Magellan, GPX and Google Earth
So how is this different from a physical letter, in which the consent of the sender is presumed?
So what you're doing isn't copying their conversaiont - you're making another copy of a pre-existing copy which they consented to.
chat clients that save logs of your chat sessions automatically? Does that make the programmer liable?
The code and the resulting comedy confusion it provided was promptly posted online.
Thank god I don't live in the USA!
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
These kind of laws are selectively enforced. Unless you are already under some type of investigation/scrutiny, no one is going to lock you up for saving a chat log file.
>But it marks a blow to an investigative technique that has been routinely used by law enforcement, employers, ISPs and others, who often use video tape or othermeans to track criminals in chat rooms. This also has troublesome implications [for employers] monitoring of email and other forms of electronic communications."
Not really. You just can't use the log as evidence. You can still entice a scumbag, then lure him to a date with a "14 year old". Just go email before that point, and use the emails as evidence.
In a corporate world, you aren't bound by the same rules of evidence as a courtroom. You can fire someone based on stuff that wouldn't be legal in court, you just have to use a different reason.
Pick apart their time cards or performance and fire them based on that. In the US (anyway) it isn't too hard to find plenty of reasons to write people up and give them the axe. You just need to do it "by the book".
l8,
AC
AIM, YIM, and the like should still be disallowed.
I've worked in an environment where we were pretty scattered and reliant on IM too. But we had a private IRC server set up on-site, and behind our firewall. AIM, YIM, and so on, route their messages through the 'net at large, and through servers owned by AOL, Yahoo, and so on. That's a very BAD thing if there's even a CHANCE that you'll pass along code snippets or discuss confidential company information.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
"well you can probably blame the employee"
IANAL, and I don't have any knowledge about how this works in other countries, but in the US, I don't think that will fly in a court of law. The employee is an agent of the company. If the employee fails to get the permission, an agent of the company failed to get permission. Therefore, it's the company's fault (respondeat superior). I.e. companies are responsible for hiring employees, so they are responsible for the employees' actions.
I know that after knee surgery my father was not able to return to work when he felt ready because they were concerned that he might reinjure his knee on work time (the original injury was not work related). Even if *he* had been at fault, they would have been liable if he was on work time.
CYA of this sort only works inside a corporation. It has no weight in a court case, AFAIK.
A better solution is to simply automatically inform anyone who connects that the conversation is being recorded (in the log file) and direct them to other methods of conversation if this is unacceptable. A buddy list request response might be able to handle this (if you only accept messages from someone on your buddy list; those not on it have to send you a request to be on it).
DO you give implicit permission to record buddy requests that you make? If not, then how could they add you to the buddy list (doesn't that record it)?
This kind of thing would never be an issue with postal mail, because a tangible copy is made. By convention this is assumed to be true of email. Instant messaging blurs the lines. Thanks to the wonders of internet technology, we have modes of communication inherently unlike anything contemplated by legislative bodies at the time of the writing of these laws.
What do appeals courts generally do to convictions based on laws that weren't written with the circumstances of the alleged crime in mind? They generally throw them out. Lets hope this holds, and also badger our legislators to allow recording of communications by those known by the speaker to be receiving them. Two-party consent lets the powerful screw over the little people and not be held accountable for it. It's arguably a first amendment violation, though apparently nobody has argued that lately, or at least not convincingly.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I think we need more people like this.
I mean, no, I don't want to be put in jail for saving a chat log, but I do believe that this type of thinking promotes freedom. You would have the freedom of saying something to a friend on IRC without worrying that someone is going to use it against you.
In a country where the laws keep on getting more crappy for joe american, we need protection.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I sure hope carnivore gets my permission to log my ideas.
I sure hope the wire taps get my permission to steal my ideas.
what about all keyloggers that are in uses?
do they have to get permissions despite thier intended use.
You have the choice of working for another employer. Welcome to capitalism.
HAND.
With all the bad press lately regarding Perverted Justice, I can see that this ruling may put an end to their tactics. There is a full write up on Perverted Justice and how they hinder law enforcement efforts to nab predators on Chatmag
You would have the freedom of saying something to a friend on IRC without worrying that someone is going to use it against you.
If you don't trust your friend, why are you telling him your secrets in the first place? Even if it's somehow possible to prevent him from saving the transcript, there's no way you can stop him from "using it against you".
In a country where the laws keep on getting more crappy for joe american, we need protection.
On the other hand, I see great potential for abuse. I'm sure certain individuals in government would love to prevent all permanent records of their statements.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
What about if I'm in a different state and I record a conversation I'm having with someone in New Hampshire? Am I breaking the law? Technically, I really couldn't be prosecuted because it crosses state lines and becomes a federal issue, which there is no federal 'two-party consent' law. Anyone care to venture a guess?
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
"TOM"? I think you meant "RON"!
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
I guess it's too late to get modded up, but what the heck.
New Hampshire, 2004. Brains are now officially forbidden in New Hampshire, said House spokesman Turner. The recent court decision forbidding recording equipment from capturing chat logs has essentially extended the ban on everything, from pen and paper to modern human brains. "This shouldn't cause too much problem, only a few people still had brains in working order within the state, anyway", said spokesman Turner. "Although you can still possess brains, you are forbidden to use them for recording any kind of information, so complete lobotomy is probably the only option unless you can produce a medical certificate to the effect that your brain is incapable (permanently or temporarily) of recording memories." The main character from Memento was recently seen in the state, and the state governor has announced plans to convert the state into a giant hospital for taking care of alzheimer patients - if he can remember giving the order.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but shouldn't the issue of whether participants have a right of privacy in this case be dependent on whether they have a reasonable expectation of privacy? It seems at least arguable that they don't.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
The American with Disability Act governs the rights to secure hardcopy of telephone conversation through relay services.
This bill will die quicker than you can say one tap, two tap, three tap, floored!
I guess bash is in trouble...
-S
Hah!
Now how precisely do they intend on going about enforcing such a stupid law?
It's sorta like the idiots that insist on criminalizing a woman knowingly putting dangerous products into her body while pregnant. I guess she'd better not go outside! After all, there are automotive fumes and teratogenic substances floating around.. and she knowingly decided to breathe!
The desire for people to turn the U.S. government into some kind of an all pervasive nanny state absolutely stuns me.
The Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press has an excellent guide to the laws regarding taping in all 50 states.
Here's their section on New Hampshire law:
N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2: It is a felony to intercept, or disclose the contents of, any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties. However, it is a misdemeanor for a party to a communication, or anyone who has the consent of only one of the parties, to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication.
Civil damages are expressly authorized for unlawful interceptions for the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000 in addition to punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:11.
Use of a hidden camera in a private place without the consent "of the persons entitled to privacy therein" is a misdemeanor. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 644:9. A classroom was not a private place where a school custodian could reasonably expect to be safe from video surveillance. State v. McLellan, 744 A.2d 611 (N.H. 1999).
rands > T PANTS DO YOU KNOW WE CAN GO TO JAIL FOR THIS (ROUGHLY)
pants > T RANDS I HAVE THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDERED YOUR QUESTIONrands > AND
pants > SORRY I FELL ASLEEP
pants > OKAY WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN (ULTIMATELY I HAVE NO IDEA)
rands > T PANTS MIST?
pants > OMG HLUGALUGALUGALUG! WE COULD ALL GO TO JAIL HLUGALUGALUGALUG
I saw that shot more than a few times back when Starbuck was a man. ~ lucabrasi999
If it's illegal to "intercept", then you can't even log on, let alone participate or save.
Ad Astra Per Asper
According to AIM's TOS:
"In addition, by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses."
Since he had to agree to use the TOS to use AIM, would it not therefore be implicit that since AOL has the right to reproduce the content, that it therefore is being recorded? Seems like some bad District Attorneys out there to let that argument slip by. That says nothing of the waiving of any rights to privacy in the TOS.
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
But it marks a blow to an investigative technique that has been routinely used by law enforcement, employers, ISPs and others, who often use video tape or other means to track criminals in chat rooms. This also has troublesome implications [for employers] monitoring of email and other forms of electronic communications.
This is a good thing - punish people for crimes or for not doing their job, not for words. As for chat rooms, well you shouldn't be saving (or at least publishing) logs if you think the other person will object. Of course, hopefully jail sentence will only be imposed if someone can demonstrate serious harm.
I use trillian and have it setup to log all conversations. That is effectively the same as copy&pasting, only its being done in the background for me. I wonder how the law applies to this. Would this make it illegal to use Trillian, which defaults to logging conversations, illegal to use in that state?
There's a significant difference between logging a public chat room and logging a private chat room. Under the Federal wiretap statute, at least, it's legal to log a public chat room, since a public chat room is "an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public." 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(i). Does anyone know whether the chat room Detective Warchol logged was public or private? Of course, New Hampshire law could be different from the Federal law.
I think it's misleading to think of this question in terms of "expectation of privacy." Expectation of privacy is a Fourth Amendment concept. Statutes governing the privacy of electronic communication are often written using different language.
...speaking in public? Do news agencies ask you to sign a waiver of your rights before running up to you to get your opinion on something?
Chat boards are like being in public places and talking. Anyone who happens to have a tape recorder (say they are making notes for use later on) and they happen to capture you saying something can't be prosecuted for having done so. (Unless it is truly slanderous or libelous.) In chat - you may need to copy/paste something so you can relate another comment back to a previous comment. Thus, playing like each copy/paste is a violation of one person's rights is like say echos in a room have to be done away with. Nice idea but not (generally) enforcable.
Last, but not least, the Supreme Court dictated that online activities are protected in the same manner as newspapers and TV reporters are protected. These people copy/paste what people say all of the time. Thus, by its very nature, this law attempts to circumvent the freedom of the press portion of what the Supreme Court was talking about.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
it's in the public domain when it gets put on the net in a chatroom, your law is no longer valid.
oh, by the way, your mountain face fell apart, too. ya gonna try and fine God for that?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Sounds like some agreements that are routinely made have just been declared invalid by a court of law. Now what a mess we have.
[_] - startup when machine boots
[_] - save my preferences each time I log off
[_] - allow others to log my conversations
Neither would I.
Anonymity is Not Cowardace.
Just say, "Hey, friend, I think that last remark of yours was really pithy and full of wit - may I please save it for posterity?" Of course, that could blow an investigation, but we can't win 'em all...
I wonder if it would be legal if you put a diclamer in your AOL or AIM profile that says "by IMimg me you give consent to have the conversation logged".
Since profiles are public and easily veiwed I think it would be fair warning.
If you say you have DeadAIM in your profile, which logs by default, then wouldn't that also be fair warning.
The only people who aren't able to view profiles are using third party clients, which use auto-logging anyway.
Well, actually the party consent is considered under federal wiretapping laws and mimicked with state laws. All but 12 states have one-party consent law where only one member of the conversation must consent to the recording. 12 state have an all-party consent law where all members of the conversation must consent to the recording. There is no such thing as a two-party consent law. I had this discussion earlier this week so it's very fresh in my mind. Google for "one party consent wiretap."
How can text be proven to be from the person said to have been typing? You can verify a person's voice or image, but can you verify typing??!
so wait, I'm confused. Does this mean security cameras in convenient stores in NH are illegal? Or do you give consent to be recoreded by entering the store. Are there signs posted that you are giving this consent?
Ok, is this going to be realistically possible to police? I mean, I live in the UK, and as far as I know, there is no such law here. So if I record a chat with someone who's in New Hampshire... What then? If I am liable in this situation, how do I know whether or not the person I'm talking to is in a state with these laws? Also, I have MSN Messenger set up to automatically save a log (great since my cousin sends me URLs to all kinds of stuff, and it's nice to be able to get to them once the chat is closed). Am I potentially breaking the law? I'd probably say that anyone who signs onto a chat room implicitly gives their consent to have their messages recorded.
This also has troublesome implications [for employers] monitoring of email and other forms of electronic communications."
um no... you signed that letter that says you read and AGREE to the employee handbook. in there it states we monitor everything and more....
This wont bother businesses and employers one bit.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
For me they'd probably apply the maximum sentence. I not only log my conversations, I also parse them with a Perl script and store them in a mySQL database.
This is because I have a rather bad memory, and it also comes very handy sometimes. For example, it's useful to find URL that appeared in a conversation, find what exactly somebody said about some subject without having to dig in all my logs (having 4 different places with logs is quite a nuisance), and it's especially useful to find things like birthdays and addresses.
I think the current database has somewhere about 100K rows.
1) Find someone from New Hampshire
2) Coax them into a conversation worthy of blackmail.
3) Threaten to tell the wife/boss/mother whatever.
4) They cave in because they can't save your conversation without breaking the law.
It might actually work too. There was an episode of cops where they wouldn't do anything to a local crack house without proof. So a woman from the neighborhood walked in, bought crack, came out and gave it to the cops. They arrested her for possession of crack, and still ignored the crack house. Absolutely nuts.
I can't do that! I record every conversation.
I feel that when someone tells me something via some IM program, it gives me the right to do as I please with it. Now, there is some flexibility, IE: a quote from someone else.
I'm not saying I'm right about recopying, but that's the way Internet "custom" I suppose governs it.
"The only way 3 men can keep a secret, is if 2 of them are dead."
Old saying and it holds true.
By its very nature a weblog blog or some other chat is going to have its text blathered all over the place and will be logged automatically by many servers. Bluntly only an IDIOT Lawyer (Liar) could possibly imagine that a conversant's message sent over the internet was not being recorded. Furthermore; it should be implied that it will be recorded. This is like going down town and buying gasoline at the local station and NOT expecting to be filmed from 6 angles.
It would take a lawyer with some intelligence (say slightly more than 3 large rocks and a brick) to defeat any claim that a party to a Weblog or blog or chatroom had not consented by appearing there to be recorded.
This claim is a non-starter if the judge actually has any judgement.
To be fair this does bring up an issue of the use of the data. (Something we in the /. community really aught to take up and help the Legal Idiots fix) Just because data may be recorded and is in public doesn't mean it really should be used outside of "Necessary Use" conditions. For Example I am sure the TV Cameras at a Gas Station have a real purpose, but if the owner started using the films and sound for (Use your Imagination) some other purposes, clear they might well be Misuse. I don't think that just because everything someone says is recorded we should use it or that we even should collate it and store it outside "Reasonable Uses." Lets start a good discussion of this Eh? /.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
I guess now that prisons are all full of everyday computer users, the criminals all had to become politicians.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
It's exactly that: you said it. On slashdot, yuo can't delete/modify your posts. Why? Because you SAID it, and you can't take back what you said. If I talk to you on the phone, I may not be able to record it, but I probably can go around saying "Joe shmoe said he's eating beans for dinner tonight," (or whatever he said). IANAL, so I may be wrong on this.
And if this is taken further, it could be taken to say that ANY computer logs are illegal, as well as public security cameras. I know it's a bit of a stretch, but it's not much.
I'm sure certain individuals in government would love to prevent all permanent records of their statements.
Like Scalia barring reporters from recording his speeches?
Freedom: "I won't!"
All the men are men.
All the women are men.
All the children are cops.
--
E_NOSIG
If you're directly sending me data, of any kind, why is it unreasonable for me to be able to save it on my computer? Regardless of whether it's saved by "default" or not.
Who doesn't like free music?
Does anyone have a comprehensive list of states that do and do not have this kind of a law?
-Tim Louden
> In Texas, as long as one party knows the
> conversation is being recorded, it's legal.
Then you are in the clear.
If you have the jabber server there, it does the logging, then you can have the chats saved.
I guess texas colocation providers now have an added advantage over the new england providers...
As many great men before me have done, I'm going to forego comment on this and allow Penny Arcade to speak for me.
In New Zealand (and possibly other nations) we have a single party consent law which basically means any party may record a telephone conversation - without necessarily notifying the other party. This has many weird and wonderful implications - but at least the kind of nuttiness mentioned here wouldn't result. NB and BTW - IANAL
What if I take a real chat session and change the names? Heck, real chat sessions don't even have real names; Can Munkygurl69 show me some legal ID with that name on it?
What if some hacker put those logs there! Seems like some California judge got off on some sort of child porn charges by claiming it was put there [actually he got off because the search of his computer was illegal - but the claim was hey, if this guy could break into my computer and "search" it, why couldn't he have put the stuff there!]
If you leave an open wireless connection can you then plausibly deny anything coming from your IP address was necessarily "you"? Isn't it like those red-light cameras - if the driver doesn't come out in the picture, they only know that it was your car, but can't prove you went thru the light.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I'd hink that when talking on IM you have given implied consent for the guy you're sending to (but nobody in the middle) to save it. And in irc, etc, you're publishing into the public domain, so does this law actually apply?
Actually if the server is logging then you're violating it because neither party involved in the conversation is the one logging.
Nevertheless it's common paranoia theory that the major IMs do log all their conversations, so that they can sell information to the US government.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
what does canada have to do with pizza?
;P
Anyways...
Look out bash.org! lawsuits coming your way!
Now that New Hampshire is the home of the Free State Project, which is aimed at getting rid of stupid laws, I expect the whole two-party-consent law won't last long.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
I wonder if a browser cache of Slashdot would be tantamount to illegal recording of a conversation...
What? Now I can't talk on the phone?
Sheesh.
I can't see any reason why there shouldn't be a law to protect the right of any individual to record anything they have personal knowledge of.
God help me when the RIAA comes after my hearing aid.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The article referred to mischaracterizes the case to serve the author's own agenda. Really, the case was about excluding evidence obtained by a detective in violation of the state's wiretap statute. No one went to jail, and the detective was never threatened with any criminal prosecution. I hate slanted journalism like this! Plus the author is a lawyer and should have known better.
... you can trust me ... I'm not out to get you.
States like New Hampshire with two-party consent laws are more protective of your rights than one-party consent states. Do you really want to live in a world where the state, masquerading a someone else, can lead you to say things that are later used against you? Go ahead, tell me
-- Anonymous 43 year old bald male lawyer
It most likely boils down to reasonable expectations. It is generally accepted that people do not record conversations, however, you can diary the conversation and that *is* admissible as evidence (here in .au). However, it is *very* reasonable for digital communications to be stored in one form or another, anyonee participating in IM or IRC should reasonably expect for their words to be stored.
Also,
This gets interesting for a friend of mine who logs all messaging (email, IRC, IM) because of the field he works in. Such a precedent (no logging) would greatly complicate his life. People like stock-brokers (who may be accused of passing on insider knowledge) would be in the same boat.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
I wish somebody would have explained this to my (ex) girlfriend's cute friend.
Fnord.
Um. I use Trillian, and it saves a log of my Chats? So does this mean that by just using a piece of software I can go to jail?
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN!!!!
*deletes chatlogs and runs and hides in a closet*
$>man woman
$>Segmentation fault (core dumped)
If were all having to turn off the auto-logging option, which i seriously doubt anyone will, does that mean everyones favorite website, bash is illegal? that would be sad. and what makes this any different from quoting someone later in a verbal conversation?
not if it's sufficiently attenuated, or removed from the original bad act that it has been purged of it's "illegal taint".
Missouri v. Seibert is before the US Supreme Court right now and involves a practice known as the two-step interrogation. the way the law stands now... they can interrogate you without giving you your Miranda warnings... and make you confess! of course making you confess is a violation of your 5th Amendment rights and is excluded as FOPT.
here's the sneaky part that the Rehnquist court has allowed:
once a criminal has confessed they're Mirandized. since they already confessed they sign a written confession or confess again on tape. the second confession after being Mirandized is now a valid waiver of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination... and is admissible!
the court has upheld it in the past... but the cops in SEIBERT were specifically trained to backdoor suspects like this. I don't see them throwing the confession out, personally.
. SLASHDOT: Home of the vicious nerd.
If Yahoo, AOL, and MSN can't stop trillian, then how would the court stop them?
Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.
cragenw
How quaint is NH? If the induhvidual had typed a letter and mailed it there would be no question about its evidentiary value. Lets all look for excuses for why doing something stupid on the internet is different from doing something stupid anywhere else. And how some nonexistant right can be used to oppress the people.
With the advent of carniore and the patriot act and others of the same kind, you can be sure that all your conversations in the internet are beign saved!
73. By entering this chat room you agree that any of the parties participating in the conversation may save all or part of the conversation.
74. You abandon all copyrights to any informations and opinions you express in this chatroom.