At 9:56 PM -0500 11/27/00, anonymous@openpgp.net wrote:
A report is to conclude that the FBI's e-mail surveillance system does not threaten civil liberties. Privacy advocates remain unconvinced. By Jennifer DiSabatino Privacy advocates said they remain leery about the FBI's Carnivore e-mail surveillance system following last night's release of a draft report on the technology by an independent review team, despite the report's conclusions that the controversial software essentially does what it was designed to do - track specific digital communications with the permission of a court order.
But others, including the FBI, said the report prepared by the Chicago-based IIT Research Institute (IITRI) shows that Carnivore just needs to be fine-tuned and then closely monitored itself in order to prevent the system from being improperly used by law-enforcement officials.
No mention of a basic objection: this so-called Carnivore _might_ be authorized by a specific court order in a specific case, but: a) it had better not pick up communications NOT PART OF THE ORDER. and b) it must be removed immediately after use oh, and c) all costs related to disruptions of service, downtime, etc. must be paid-for by the law enforcement agency or court ordering the operation. I'm surprised I don't see more ruckus about b). Look at it simply. Alice is operating a couple of machines for her small ISP. Some guys in uniform, or maybe just ninjas in black, arrive with a court order saying that their Pentium III Carnivore box must be attached to her system. She consults with her lawyer and says "OK, you can begin your attachment when we have a scheduled down time tonight at midnight." Maybe they agree, maybe they demand immediate installation. Anyway, it somehow gets installed. Assuming it doesn't have the deleterious effects Earthlink was reporting, let's assume it sits there and does its thing. Ten days later, Jim Bell^h^H^H^H^Hthe perp is busted. Alice calls the cops and says: "Come on over and pick up your machine." Ah, but what we are hearing about Carnivore is that these would be semi-permanent installations. Well, if I ran a small ISP, I think I'd say: "You got a wiretap order for one person. That order has now run its course. Get your machine out of my cage." There is nothing in the Constitution about one particular search warrant then magically meaning access is forever granted! "We got a search warrant two years ago so we can enter this house at any time." More in tune with discussions I used to see (and participate in) on the Cyberia-L list, there _might_ be some "innkeeper's interpretation" (so to speak) about how a hotel owner can authorize access to the rooms of patrons without specific warrants for the patrons, by name. I believe, though I don't have any cites, that this power is not so broad. And a warrant served against the San Francisco Hyatt Regency in, say, October 1997, does not mean that cops can wander through hotel rooms at will a year or three later. My understanding of search warrants and wire taps is that the specific party, time and place, must be named. There is no provision for Carnivore boxes being "resident." CALEA has some onerous language in it, but it doesn't trump the Fourth Amendment. --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)