Whoops! I mistyped when sending out the last message. To be clear, we asked the 13 companies this question: "Is it your policy to alert the user to the presence of any spyware or keystroke logger, even if it is installed by a police or intelligence agency in the absence of a lawful court order signed by a judge?" And we received 13 responses saying YES, it was their policy. Putting this thing together was a beast (about 5,000 words including the verbatim responses) and you can tell that I'm a bit frazzled as a result. Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2007/07/17/will-security-firms/ And, by way of comparison, here's something from the archives saying Symantec in 2001 would overlook FBI spyware: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02851.html And McAfee apparently saying the same: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02834.html But then McAfee challenged the AP article: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02846.html http://www.politechbot.com/p-02840.html At least now we have them on the record in a less ambiguous way. (The court order clause could be a loophole, but National Security Letters aren't signed by a judge so I don't think it's a big one.) -Declan _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE