Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge: Keystroke Logging Isn't Wiretapping
TospenJ writes "A federal judge in Los Angeles has dismissed wiretapping charges against a California man who used a hardware keystroke logger to spy on his employer, SecurityFocus is reporting. The court ruled that the device doesn't violate the federal Wiretap Act because it only intercepted signals off a keyboard cable, not an interstate network. The government is asking for reconsideration. Ironically, the judge relied in part on the Scarfo precedent, which allowed the FBI to use such a keylogger without a wiretap warrant."
Either it's a wiretap or it's not.
Heads the prosecutors win and the FBI loses.
Tails the prosecutors lose and the FBI wins.
Looks like tails.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
How exactly is that ironic? Judge upholds precident. Wow, that's an unexpected turn!
Hmmm.
Isn't that ironic?
Now that there's precident, I can start spying on John Ashcroft!
Payback Be-och!
But isn't running trojan software to monitor someone illegal by other means anyway? I mean, these overbroad "unauthorized access of a computer system" laws must be good for something.
What part of the word wire do I not understand? My keyboard is attached to my PC with a wire. Don't know about yours...
http://melbournephilosophy.com/
I think one of the main reasons we have these sorts of decisions is the fact that the average judge is so old he has no idea what a computer is or what it is being used for. To say that typing on a keyboard would not possibly be an interstate communication shows a lack of knowledge of what email is, what irc is, what instant messaging is......
It was keystroke logging. But there should be a law against that.
What good is a cake if you can't eat it too?
/sarcasm
When the federal government or a company does it, it isn't wiretapping. But if the common man does it especially to a company or the government in return it is.
If only people would realize that the depth and breadth of the hipocrisy the current powers that be employ, they would be shocked.
Does this also apply to software keystroke recorders? Perhaps ones that also provide backdoors into ones computer...
Divide by zero hurts my brain.
I guess I'll just have to carry one of those "indestructable" keyboards in my pocket. I'll have to wear a trenchcoat to cover the bulge.
1) Check the keyboard connection. Remove any foreign devices and destroy them, if need be.
2) Check for any odd or suspicious processes running in the background. Kill processes that don't look right (can be very dangerous though, and impossible if it's running as another user...).
Maybe if someone had a list of known keylogger processes, it'd be fine to kill processes... Google doesn't turn up anything like that easily. If someone feels like going more in-depth into the search and finding a nice list, feel free.
Or maybe just use a password-protected laptop, that only you can use. And I mean a good, secure password.
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
Wiretaps should be any recording device attached to any device or cable that sends or recieves data. After all its a "Wire" "Tap".
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
If keystroke logging isn't wiretapping, maybe this opens a whole can of worms whereby spyware becomes legal. And if software that sits on my machine without my knowledge relaying my credit card information to a teenager in a foreign country can't be considered wiretapping -- or if the same standard is applied to spyware purveyors as to government agents -- then there's something screwy in the law that needs to be fixed.
I think spyware needs to be stopped now. And I don't think that the ability to conduct legitimate investigation should be confused in the law with some guy allegedly spying on his employer. Two different things that need to be handled two different ways.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Well, from what I understand wiretapping is monitoring a communication circuit. Unless what they wanted to admit into evidence was a conversation that the user was having I don't see much of a problem here
The feds usually argue that just being connected to the internet makes the machine involved in interstate commerce. Or actually they rarely even have to argue this. If they lose this and have to show that interception or fraud involved actual interstate network traffic, a lot of convictions will fall.
does it matter if the physical hardware is local, and then transmits the data over interstate lines. Is it legal if the FBI installs a key logger, that they have to physically access? What about a video camera that doesn't transmit pictures but records them to tape. The tape is then accessed without sending the data over comunication lines or radio, is that legal?
"brxref
In Constitutional terms, this is the correct ruling. Federal laws only extend to "interstate commerce," which these days is interpreted to mean "interstate anything."
I do see the sad humor in the government's hypocrisy, given their arguments in the FBI wiretapping case. However, the real outrage here is that there is no state law which clearly prohibits the interception of electronic signals.
Remember, folks, the states are supposed to take care of their own business. It's not always convenient, but it's how the Constitution gives primary power to state governments rather than the federal one.
I don't the case in question, but if it was local to a person's keyboard wouldn't that be out of FBI jurisdiction?
(unless of course they were typing something illegal on the internet)
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
That motion will be dropped quickly.
Asscroft and his buddies will be pushing to drop that.
If it isn't wiretapping, this makes yet another thing they can do with greater ease.
I SUPPOSE it would matter on what the computer was being used for at the time. If it only does e-mail, than maybe key logging could be wire tapping. If you were revising your 'take over the world' plans/presentation for your minions, and only printed them, and did not transmit them over a network, key logging is not wiretapping. Thou... what if you have a printer on the LAN.. would that be "transmitting" so to speak? What about site to site vpn?
keystroke logging is much worse than wiretapping! not only can private communication between people (email, IM) be recorded, but even more personal privacy (journal, diary) can be recorded via keystroke! your own private diary can now be snooped on by the FBI. how does that make you feel?!?
Oh, and retreive the data.
Assuming JA types his own stuff.
P.S. John Ashcroft is leaving public service, so act fast.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
This ruling appears pretty straightforward, after all a keyboard cable barely reaches 5 feet much less across state lines. However, when you realize that the standard in question was simply 'affecting interstate or foreign commerce' the result is much more significant. Especially considering the very broad interpratation of this clause in the past.
If this ruling is upheld it could have some very interesting consequences relating to governmental power. In general the federal government only has the power to legislate things which affect interstate commerce (plus a bunch of other exception...which we won't consider here). For instance if it was determined that a TiVO does not affect interstate/foriegn commerce the FCC would not have the ability to foist broadcast flags or other copyright protection mechanisms. Similar problems would occur with any attempt to federally regulate copyright protection into the PC.
Surely, one would think that protecting copyright would affect interstate commerce (whether this is effective or not is an entierly seperate matter). However, this misses the true significance of this ruling. Despite the fact that some of the keystrokes were sent in interstate email he still apparently considered the keyboard itself not to be affecting interstate commerce. For this not to be considered interstate commerce suggests a much stricter/direct standard is being applied.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the standard involved. The article wasn't very precisce and perhaps the federal wiretap act actually requires the *communication itself* to be interstate. However, I think this is unlikely as I believe it also covers *in state* wire taps. Although, even if I am correct I imagine this will be reversed on appeal. This is simply a far too drastic change in understanding of what it means to affect interstate commerce.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Hm... I wonder whether wardriving and hacking wireless networks would stand up in court as well... :)
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!
I just can't be bothered.
Like an earlier poster said.
Can of worms.
So monitoring a phone line is wiretapping. What about monitoring the cord between the handset and the phone?
Same difference here. 9 times out of 10, a computer is used to communicate with another computer in the workplace, or beyond the workplace. Monitoring the connection between the keyboard and the PC is monitoring interstate communication.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Eatin' ain't cheatin'.
I'll use the keylogger to get the server passwords and bring down the server whenever I feel like it. Nothing like a rm -rf at / to ruin his day ;-)
If I'm typing an e-mail and somebody has a keylogger on my machine, that's not wiretapping. Okay. What about:
Suppose I'm logging in via telnet to a machine outside my current state, on a shell that sends each character of my password as I type it. Somebody else is logging my keystrokes, and there's a one-to-one mapping between each key I press and each character that gets sent over the network to the remote host. Is that a wiretap?
Suppose I'm logging in via telnet to a machine outside my current state, on a shell that sends my password as one packet after I have typed the entire password in. Someone is running a keylogger, and there is a chance that I could switch to another application in the middle of typing my password and then switch back and finish my password. So, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between what I type and what gets sent over the network. Is this a wiretap?
Suppose I'm logging in via SSH to a machine outside my current state, and the SSH client sends my password both encrypted and all in one packet after I've finished typing it. Someone is running a keylogger. Explicit measures are taken to protect my password (the encryption of the SSH connection), and there is therefore not a one-to-one correspondence between what I type and what goes out over the network. Remember, the keylogger obtains the same information that is protected by the secure connection. Is this a wiretap?
Suppose my password is the length of an e-mail (and is of the same form as an e-mail, with possibly private textual information and everything). I even wait about an hour between typing in the password and hitting enter to send it, a bit like with an e-mail. Someone is running a keylogger on my machine - is this a wiretap?
The law should allow for common sense. If the intent is there they are breaking the law. The intent was to "wire tap". He was trying to obtain private or priviledged information. Is it really neccassary for the government to micromanage the laws? It's where loop holes come from. The intent is obvious but due to wording it doesn't specifically cover the act. Does the law need to be rewritten just to add a specific reference to keyboards? Electronically intercepting the information should be enough.
What about this situation? It's illegal to monitor certain frequencies. They are used by the government for security reasons and can't be legally monitored. Let's say some one comes up with a way of detecting the changes in the atmosphere caused by radio waves. They aren't monitoring the radio transmition they are monitoring tiny changes in the air. Is that illegal? Do you think the government would mind?
This does not seem equivanletn to a wire tap to me. He is only getting one side of the conversation. Not saying it a good idea either.
What about MS Word...
it keeps a record of stuff I type on my keyboard...
damn keyloggers at it again!
And owning kids in online games isn't child "exploitation"
In other news, some say that "slavery is freedom."
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Does anyone know if it is considered wiretapping to a phone signal between the handset and the base? Or for that matter, a cordless phone between handset and base? I'm guessing it probably would be because the audio signal is directly transmitted. Although in the case of a cordless there may be some A->D->A converting going on.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
It's mentioned in the SecurityFocus article, but for those too lazy to search for it, the device in question was a KEYKatcher.
Anybody try one of these? Do they work well?
For example, employers reading employee email should be considered the same as them opening regular snail-mail. Snooping through an employee's disk space on the server is the same as snooping through their physical locker. Crackers that barge into other people computers are really no different than someone forcefully entering your house, sitting on your couch and drinking your beer. Saying "they should have better security" is like saying "you should have inch thick stel doors.
The letter of the law might not include electronic methods, but the basic reason the privacy laws are just the same.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
a keyboard in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me? ;-)
If you really want to watch a grown man anointing himself with oil and handling snakes while cringing from statues that feature boobies....
Don't type anything important.
If he knew that his own keyboard can be wiretapped by someone. I for one would love to find out what kind of pr0n sitest federal judges go to.
With keystroke logging, they can even snoop on what you post to slashdot!
..this is the era where common sense and a good hunch for justice just arent enough..
in the past judges could make decision based on their wisdom. Today, they are further removed from technology that's advancing so fast they can barely keep up even if they try..
keyloggers, spammers, phishers should be judged by someone/some boards that really knows what it is and what's at stake..
First off, it looks like the FBI, -in this case-, was acting legitimately, with authority from a judge. The fact that they had only a search warrant, rather than a wiretap order, is a technicality, they could have gotten either one with probable cause (which I presume they had, since nothing has been presented to the contrary.)
However, I am concerned about the broader scope of this precedent. The earlier post and article already mentioned keylogging by everyone from jealous spouses to bosses. Do we not need to draw a line (and demand that our state legislatures do so) by enacting privacy protection for this type of scenario?
While we decry "activist judges", the fact remains that technology is quickly outpacing the laws made to cover it. Under the current strict interpretations that seem to be in vogue by the courts, laws are obsolete before they get out of their Senate committee. Someone will figure out a new way to do something that flaunts the spirit of a law without -technically- violating its letter.
Given that, it would seem that judges need to look at the intent of laws as well as their specific, strict letter. It certainly applies that "freedom of speech" applies to email and websites as well as the spoken and written word, even though such things are (obviously) not mentioned, as they didn't exist. Similarly, it would seem to me that the wiretap law is being construed quite narrowly here. The obvious intent of the law is that communication is private and protected from snooping except from legitimate law-enforcement authorities under strict court scrutiny. Bosses and spouses should, quite simply, not be allowed to monitor your communications without your explicit knowledge, consent, and full understanding of what is being snooped and when. Law enforcement agencies should not be allowed to do it except with probable cause and under court scrutiny.
It seems to me that changing the location or type of monitoring (a hardware or software keylogger rather than a traditional wiretap) still is doing exactly what this law is intended to prevent. I hope, given the judge's very narrow decision, that similar laws will be passed that protect us against similar types of snooping, from law enforcement or anyone else.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
...boy, I can sure think of a few e-mails I'm really glad I "X'd" out of instead of sending...
I hope if this holds up, courts in he future will at least be sure to demand that a warrant be issued to search the rest of the computer to confirm if any of this information actually WAS sent, or if it was just saved and not acted apon.
Perhaps laws on bugging devices should be applied in this case as opposed to wiretapping? That would make more sense, I can't hide microphones in your house and listen to your conversations, but if I did, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be considered "wiretapping".
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
The court ruled that the device doesn't violate the federal Wiretap Act because it only intercepted signals off a keyboard cable, not an interstate network
Who cares about the source of the signals. It *do* send the intercepted signals over an interstate network. But I guess that doesn't matter...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The logic of this ruling would let me put a voice recorder onto your telephone handset because it's only talking to the phone on your desk. It is self evident nonsense because the target of the conversation may be anywhere.
When I type an email and send it to my mom, it typically travels to Virginia and back. If that's not interstate, I'm not sure what is because I don't live in Virginia. If your computer is connected to an interstate network, it's interstate commerce. Indeed, it's global commerce and that's what the internet is supposed to be.
You have to wonder how people talk themselves into stuff like this. When you intercept people's electronic communications, you are wiretapping.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The bottom line is that you can not trust someone else's computer or network. To have real privacy, you have to use your own, with trusted (that's free) software and encryption. The internet has always been an untrusted network that must be guarded against.
That does not make this kind of capitulation to and conniving on the part of the Federal government any more appealing or sensible.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If they use a keylogger to capture what I type into my online journal, it's not a wiretap. If they use a keylogger to capture what I type to my mother, it's boring, and sometimes profane - but probably also a wiretap.
This is a case where judges are forced to apply old rules for old tech to new tech. The original intent of the wiretap law was to prevent people from eavesdropping on conversations between two parties without appropriate judicial oversight. So is using a keylogger wiretapping? It depends.
The real answer is an updated law to reflect the updated technology. Relying on Judges to protect our rights is the sign of a lazy legislature.
paintball
The federal government is expressly provided the ability to regulate copyright by the constitution - no interstate commerce is necessary. They can legislate whatever they would like to protect copyright.
The FCC, however, has a mandate which only extends to broadcast transmissions (currently, we'll see if that limit remains in place after 4 more years of republicans), so they can't mess with your TiVo yet.
paintball
'Nuff said!
NOT ironic. It is proper that the knife of equal protection of the law cuts both ways, and protects the FBI investigator (a citizen), as well as the individual (also, and equally, a citizen).
Where did we start to hold the assumption that the police are not civilians?
Irony and poetic justice at once, really. But does anyone else think it should be the other way? That is, that it should be considered a wiretap when done by either FBI or private citizen, and regulated accordingly?
I'm not an expert on US warrants. Does having surveilance equipment in a room require a wiretap warrant, if there's a person holding an interstate phone call in there?
If it doesn't, then logging a keyboard (room) shouldn't require a wiretap (Internet) warrant. If it does, well then it is a wiretap. Take your pick.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
just how much different is this than say keylogging the signals between a teletype keyboard and an io controller or cpu ?
"[T]his court finds it difficult to conclude that the acquisition of internal computer signals that constitute part of the process of preparing a message for transmission would violate the Act."
/. lawyers in the know could make this clear. Also, why couldn't the guy be prosecuted under state wiretap law?
I wonder how this would apply to VOIP when the phone, wired or wireless, is connected to the computer that converts (prepares) the voice for transmission? Would it also apply to analog phone lines that are only PSTN within the a state but Packet switched for interstate? Cano 'O' worms, get your Can 'O' worms right here.
makes it illegal to covertly intercept electronic communications transmitted "over a system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." says you've still got state law on your side, but this is another can 'O' worms all on it's own. If it's a fed investigation into a fed crime, do you really have any protection under state law? IANAL and would be curious if any
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Place your computer in one state and your keyboard across the state line.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
First off, Dr. Spock was the doctor in the US in the 1950's who wrote books on how to raise children. He might have heard the term 'stardate', and maybe even knew what it referred to. However, I doubt he will be making quotes when 'stardate 2822.3' rolls around. Having died in 1998 and all.
Now if you meant Mr. Spock, first officer of the starship USS Enterprise, also know as NCC-1701, I still doubt you are being accurate. After all why would a Vulcan find it enlightening to quote a Jedi Master? Especially one who existed long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
I have to stop wasting so much time reading Slashdot. It's interfering with my crystal meth addiction.
Don't feed the trolls!
I'm pretty sure if we install a keylogger on the judges pc that he will soon realize where he went wrong.
One of my clients has a couple dozen computers I service. The computer of one employee in particular had become a recurrent problem with malware and after serveral cleanups and discussions with the employee, including reaffirmations of the companies computer usage policy, the root source of the problem remained unclear as the employee denied any breach of that policy and could offer no help in tracing it down. While it is entirely possible that my cleanups where less than 100% effective, it was not highly probable by the time of the third reinfection. I'd been over that system with a fine tooth comb a couple times by the second infection. Yet a malware load so bad that the system was effectively rendered useless kept crawling back. Not only was this costing the client downtime it was also costing me money. I don't charge extra to fix a job not done right the first time.
I needed to find out a couple things such as how this problem was getting past my security settings and if the employee was the root source or not. To help determine that, I installed a keylogger. What I found was that the employee was going into adult chat rooms, downloading and running executables purported to be anything that might tickle ones imagination and the end result is what would be expected. Backdoor trojans, browser hijackers and porn dialers up the wazoo stacked on top of each other until the machine was at or near death. The antivirus triggered on several occasions yet this guy didn't know a thing.
I use tools such as keyloggers and packet monitors etc on occasions as needed and in due course. Lawfully? I'm not law enforcement and don't care to be. I fix computers and sometimes fix employees like this one. We had a come to jesus meeting in the back room and he is now on the road to righteousness while remaining employed but the question becomes one of my legal liability both today and tomorrow over using these tools. If I have to start engaging lawyers in the process of working on computer systems things are going to get more expensive than they already are.
Am I the only one which thinks that a small software tap writing a descrete log would be much better and harder to detect. Worse comes to worse that then a live linux CD to look at the log.
But apart from that it oes highlight the fact that the law is out of date.
The real crux of it all is that the judge said that the Federal government can't wiretap things that don't touch interstate issues. That's the beauty of federalism. The states themselves can outlaw such activity, but unless the keys signals from pressed are somehow going outside the state, it's really just not the federal government's business.
This is a good thing.
No one here wants a pervasive, all-seeing, Big Brother of a government. The states are both less dangerous (due to their size) and more responsive to the voters (because voters are more likely to see things they don't like when they stem from a state law). It's the federal government we need to worry about when it comes to erosion of our rights.
Thus, although no one wants private individuals snooping our keyboards, this decision is a good step in keeping the larger federal government at bay in terms of possible overreaching into what should rightfully be the purview of the states.
Remember, although "states rights" have been used for such evil purposes as slavery and banning gay marriage (you can dispute that all you want, but you can't legitimately say that there's any secular reason not to allow it, if we allow octogenarians to marry), there are some states which have set the pace for the others in terms of protection of civil rights.
I gotta get to class, otherwise, I'd write quite a bit more...
The original intent of the wiretap law was to prevent people from eavesdropping on conversations between two parties without appropriate judicial oversight. So is using a keylogger wiretapping? It depends.
That's true, but the reason the feds are allowed such a law is because only the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce. That's why the scope of this federal wiretapping law is only within the bounds of interstate communications. In this case the content of the communication is irrelevant (letters to mom not withstanding).
The real answer is an updated law to reflect the updated technology. Relying on Judges to protect our rights is the sign of a lazy legislature.
The real answer is to get your state legislature to pass easedropping laws (though I'm almost positive they already exist). I'd bet he could be still prosecuted at a state level for violating some kind of anti-bugging law. As far as relying on judges to protect our rights, you do that every single day. Lest you forget our form of government was set up as a system of checks and balances. The judges interpret the law and the legislature makes them. Really the primary defendent of your rights is the judges.
AccountKiller
So if I put a tape recorder hidden in a room that records telephone calls, and I come back later to retrieve the tape (or get the tape recorder to call me late at night to play back the tape), how is that different than using a key logger to record PC activity?
Is using a tape recorder like this covered by wiretap laws? If not, what laws cover it? Those laws should apply to keyloggers too.
Can he be tried? If the case had jeopardy attached (and it probably did) and the Feds lose (it looks like they lost), they can't just go drag up another law and try, try again. They get one shot at it. Otherwise they could harrass innocent people for the rest of their lives with trials, until eventually the innocent citizen caved in. Governments have far more resources than individuals.
And what does "spy on your employer" mean? Why was his employer doing something to the computer (presumably owned by employer) he was working at that inspired him to keylog in the first place?
Well it might not be a wiretap, but it would be concidered at least to me survalance which would require a court order to do, same as fixing a camera in your bathroom, doubt the feds can do that without a court order.
Not that this has anything to do with whats going on... but the moment they were handed guns and given special powers over civilians. That is the instant they are not civilians... Lets be honest now, our police is no different than the military it might as well be a branch and we should dispense with any notions that the police shouldn't be held to a higher standard than "civilians".
Again not that this has anything to do with this but... a cop getting caught for the same crime as a civilian should immediately be forced to serve double the sentence. After all they have a greater responsibility to uphold the law than normal civilians do.
In case you were looking, here's the device.
Have fun with your self-styled "security experts" at work!
Hate to break it to you, the 'Wire' in wiretap is not an electrical wire or a data wire but something completely different. It refers to Telegraph wire and later telephone wire.
Plus, you really do not want to go with that definition. It would exclude taps that are purely software-based or are physically separate from the communication cabling but still capable of recording what is sent over the wires.
wow thats the biggest load of crap i think i've ever heard...
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
Congress and the courts are assuming that the right to "regulate devices which might circumvent copyright" is part of the right to create legislation regulating copyright. Sort of like how the right to regluate interstate commerce is used by the ITC to regulate commercial vehicles.
IIRC, it's illegal to create printing plates that could be used to counterfeit US currency. Not just to use such plates to perform the act of counterfeiting, but just to have the plates (IANAL)
I'm not saying I agree... I'm just pointing out the "reasoning" behind the regulation of copyright circumvention devices that leads TPTB to think that way.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I'd like to amplify the parent's point.
Suppose I am connected via VPN, with remote desktop sharing to a computer in a different state, such that my keyboard input is being sent to that desktop to manipulate data there. Is capturing my keyboard signals wiretapping?
"Don't know about yours..."
No you don't.
My G5 uses bluetooth.
Sometimes judges are between a rock and a hard place:
Sometimes the law is unclear, and any judicial opinion that makes it clear will have the effect of "rewriting law." Likewise, tossing the law out as ambiguous will also be "rewriting law."
Sometimes a higher law, such as the US Constitution, trumps a lower law, but Congress didn't see it or willfully ignored the possibility when they passed the law. In these cases, judges are obligated to toss the law as unconsititutional.
Sometimes judges are human. They mis-interpret the law or the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so in Plessy v. Ferguson in the late 1800s and it took over 50 years for their successors to admit their mistake.
The really difficult situations are when the US Constitution is ambiguous and judges aren't sure if they are obliged to declare a particular law unconstitutional or not. A current example is the question of "does the US constitution establish a guarenteed right of privacy, and if so, to what extent, if any, does that extend to medical decisions including abortion." Any judge who dares answer this, no matter how he answers it, is interpreting the Constitution as he sees it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If the case had jeopardy attached (and it probably did) and the Feds lose (it looks like they lost), they can't just go drag up another law and try, try again.
Double jeopardy applies to a single law, not a single act. The Rodney King trial is a case in point. The officers were first tried in state court and aquitted. There were later tried in federal court and convicted of violating Kings civil rights.
AccountKiller
I'll agree that it was not a transgression of federal wiretapping laws, but wouldn't this fall under trespass laws? Though, the employer probably did not have a stated policy against this type of thing, so at best he could fire him, but if someone unauthorized came onto someone's property to do this then it would be trespass, unless of course they had a court issued warrant.
It is like a vampire, they can only cause you harm you in your home if you invite them in.
Since the judge was being consistent with a previous ruling and saying that the keystroke logger which recorded its data to the same machine doesn't pass the threshold for being covered by the Federal Wiretap Act, he's said nothing about spyware.
I don't know the level of threshold to be covered by that act, but nothing in this ruling would prevent spyware which sends your data to a teenager in a foreign country from being called a wiretap.
This is a specific ruling in which a machine which didn't send any data to any other machine is not called a wiretap.
The judge even said the guy was a creep, but that the prosecutor hadn't demonstrated he was guilty of a wiretap.
The big problem is that the FBI had previously argued that a keystroke logger wasn't a wiretap and they won.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
But, beating Rodney King and violating Rodney King's civil rights are separate acts.
paintball
Seems pretty simple. If I recall correctly, the Anti-wiretapping regs rely on the old "regulate interstate commerce" clause in the constitution. I don't know about you, but my keyboard cable doesn't span state lines; I can't image that one could twist the situation far enough that the federal gov't would have the authority to regulate this.
... in the insurance industry?
you get one try.
The way I see it, the law should focus on the broader issue rather than on the particular details. The legality should, for example, focus on whether invasion of privacy is ok, rather than whether tapping the keyboard wire or the phone line wire is ok. It's a privacy issue, not a technology issue, and law should be simplified, not complicated.
Adding additional details and exceptions is how the law got so complicated in the first place. There's something wrong with the law when it takes a lifetime of study to fully comprehend it, especially when ignorance is not an excuse to breaking the law.
There is an easy way to make this illegal on the federal level. Encrypt the keyboard signal to the driver. Not only would it defeat most keyboard loggers in the first place, but any subsequent kb loggers to be created with encryption breaking would be illegal under the DMCA. Or if not illegal, at least give the owner of the computer the right to sue.
From my read, if the user happened to be using some kind of networked KVM software the judge would have ruled the other way. He really seemed to be throwing this back over the wall for the law to be better written.
The increased use of the Internet in everyday activities will probably continue to bring up interesting cases where "Interstate Commerce" and US federal regulation apply, and to things people didn't worry much about previously.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
If keystroke logging isn't wiretapping, maybe this opens a whole can of worms whereby spyware becomes legal.
Just because the judge rules it isn't wiretapping doesn't mean it is legal. The judge just ruled that anyone involved with keystroke logging can't be convicted of wiretapping.
The guy who was covertly keystroke logging will probably be charged with something else. There are plenty of things other than "wiretapping" you can charge someone with.
From article:
in this case several e-mail messages that had been typed in by the tapped secretary, and were therefore stored in the device.
their basis for the the '2 parties' condition
say what? Tenuate Weight Loss
I wrote:
"Tails the prosecutors lose and the FBI wins.
Looks like tails."
i.e. it's not a wiretap for the this guy, and it's not a wiretap for the FBI.
Which is pretty much what you said.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Still, I have to think the ruling is a bit funny. Yes, the PS/2 connection is strictly local. But so is an inductive pickup on a telephone. Both local links are intended and destined for interstate communications.
"Three people can keep a secret; If two are dead" - Captain Long John Silver
Some things come to mind about this persons actions:
1. From my orientation of the universe, this guy is looking at some jail time.
2. Trusting people is NOT always a good thing to do.
3. If He hasn't gotten his Keylogger back, that's theft, depending on the reward value, Grand Theft.
4. If the Keylogger is blank, he can say that the insurance company violated HIS privacy.
5. If the Keylogger is blank, he can say that the insurance company used his property WITHOUT his permission.
6. If the Keylogger is blank, he can say that the insurance company has obstructed justice.
7. Don't call that Bitch again!
8. Now he knows that the law is only concerned about rules broken, and methods not used correctly.
9. Now he knows that the law is NOT concerned about moral values.
10. Of course he could be looking at a wrongful termination suit. I don't think its stated anywhere in his employee manual that its against company policy to log the actions of his employer. And because he does not log his time going potty, other 'personal' actions may not need to be logged also.
Administrative Note:
To future 'loggers' out there, "Don't tell anybody anything about how you came into ownership of information, EVER." If you need proof of this; Then correctly answer the question, "Who is Deep Throat?" Hint; I'm not refering to the titled movie.