Re: RE: Expectation of privacy in public?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Trei, Peter" <ptrei@rsasecurity.com> To: <cypherpunks@lne.com> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 1:24 PM
Cal. Penal Code ' 631, 632 (Deering 1999): It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties.
It is not a crime for an agency of another country to eavesdrop on you as long as they are physically located outside the U.S. Similarly, it is not illegal for a US agency to intercept messages in another country, as long as they do it from outside the that country. This is how (if it really does exist) the Echelon network works. Agencies in Canada, England, Australia etc. intercept messages in the U.S. and then pass on the intelligence to their U.S. counterparts. This information sharing by-passes legal jurisdictional limits. Robert Andrews Is your personal data exposed? http://www.PrivacyExposed.com
On 24 Sep 2001, at 17:49, Robert wrote:
Cal. Penal Code ' 631, 632 (Deering 1999): It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties.
It is not a crime for an agency of another country to eavesdrop on you as long as they are physically located outside the U.S. Similarly, it is not illegal for a US agency to intercept messages in another country, as long as they do it from outside the that country.
You're on crack. The anti-eavsdropping laws don't have exemptions for agents of foreign governments, the suggestion is absurd.
This is how (if it really does exist) the Echelon network works. Agencies in Canada, England, Australia etc. intercept messages in the U.S. and then pass on the intelligence to their U.S. counterparts. This information sharing by-passes legal jurisdictional limits.
Except that it doesn't. It's not a violation of US law for US agents to spy on people in Australia, but it's almost certainly a violation of Australian law. Similarly, it's probably not a violation of Australian law for Australian agents to eavsdrop on people in California, but it's clearly a violation of California law. George
Robert Andrews Is your personal data exposed? http://www.PrivacyExposed.com
-- On 24 Sep 2001, at 15:33, georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:
It's not a violation of US law for US agents to spy on people in Australia, but it's almost certainly a violation of Australian law. Similarly, it's probably not a violation of Australian law for Australian agents to eavsdrop on people in California, but it's clearly a violation of California law.
Cypherpunks are not the first to take advantage of jurisdictional arbitrage. The Australian spys have the American spys perform their illegal-in-Australia acts for them, and the American spys have the Australian spys perform their illegal-in-America acts for them. I predict you will have some difficulty extraditing an Australian spy for spying on people in California. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG d9TKvFOQiI6PfLbS5xssrICxKXFaqIp0GfM4uOxF 4YAqO55jeOI2PxqvqPyfaf3wcZlopIZoxG7JqD+hN
Lawmaker calls for more Internet encryption http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/09/24/encryption.reut/index.html WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A U.S. lawmaker well-versed in technology issues said Friday that government bodies and citizens should use more encryption, not less, to increase security on the Internet...Goodlatte said more U.S. businesses and government agencies should use encryption to guard against future computer-based attacks that could disable power plants, banking systems, and other critical infrastructures. <...>
participants (4)
-
georgemw＠speakeasy.net -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Robert -
Xeni Jardin