Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>]

Forwarded message:

> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:00:01 +0100 (CET)
> From: DOOM Anonymous Untraceable User <nobody@seclab.com>
> Subject: Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en

> > This does raise an interesting point about freedom of speech and the duties
> > of LEA's. In a democratic society what are the ethical implications of LEA's
> > archiving publicly available documents as a matter of course, not for
> > inclusion in ongoing investigations but rather as a base for future
> > investigations.
> 
> Echelon. Also see [*1 below]

No, you silly boy. Too simple an answer and not really relevant to the
question I asked; I doubt the IRS is greatly interested in Echelon. Besides,
I was pondering *ethical issues* not the reality of the world.

> remailers are carriers. ECPA says that if you do not review content, you aren't
> responsible for it.

Does it really cover archives? Why are archivers carriers? They are
certainly doing more than simply transfering data from here to there.
They're making sure you can do it whenever. Further, there is a nagging
implication of 'real-time' in that review stipulation.

> Archivers are content providers. They have to make do with a 1st ammendment
> fig leaf.

So to be qualified the content must be publicly accessible? Or is private
access ok as well? Is 'content provider' the same as 'content carrier'?

> [hey, Jim really is protected. He's not even allowed to read CDR mail.]

What a silly interpretation. I am subscribed just like anyone else, of
course I can read the traffic. Near as I can tell I just can't read it
*before* everyone else gets to read it (ie on the outbound leg of its
journey through SSZ).

> [preamble]

Want to clarify that comment? (it's a joke)

> ECPA) were paramount in the suit. The plaintiffs claimed the
> Secret Service violated two provisions -- one prohibiting
> unjustified "disclosure and use" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 2703; the

This aspect clearly isn't going to apply to a publicly accessible mailing
list since it's going to be very near impossible to argue for any right to
privacy since a submitter *wants* others to see their traffic and there is
the implied intent to distribute without restriction (at least on the
cpunks).

> other prohibiting "interception" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 22511(1)).

This would prevent me or anyone else, at least on the surface of it, from
getting at the content *prior* to the distribution phase.

> [*1 Interesting. Maybe they have Toto for something intercepted illegally
>  and they're trying to find it from another source (by subpoena).]

I suspect they have Toto for something in meatspace and not specificaly for
something on this mailing list. Near as I can figure they're trolling the
list to get ancillary evidence of intent and potentialy evidence of 
accomplices.

> [re: public domain software on ftp archives]
> 
> It matters not, IMHO, since an ftp archive site qualifies as a library
> open to the public.

Which means what? At this point the contents of such a site are clearly
intended for review without constraint on the end use, at least I've never
had a public library employee or ftp operator ask me what I'm wanting the
info for. Or is the implication that such a site would be protected from
monitoring prior to the files being placed in the archive?


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
       To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.

                                                     Confucius

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------