Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: You shady bastards.
From: Tim <tim-security () sentinelchicken org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:40:36 -0400
Spare me and the list legalities. One it is slightly offtopic then again this is fd so I retract. That entire argument and any thread arising from what is legal and what is not is likelier to be answered, dissected, studied on a legal forum.
I agree that the subscribers to FD are not the best crowd to discuss legal issues with. This will be my last post on the matter.
Laws are not about what could or should. They're about what's written.
Exactly. That and how the courts interpret them.
In this case, he sent an email to someone's former workplace. The worker was not there, the employer obviously read the email. So the questions to ask should be 1) HD didn't give consent, did/does the employer have something written to their employees which states the monitoring of email. If they do, case closed there is the one party federal consent.
As mentioned multiple times by multiple posters, but apparently eluded your reading, the recipient's consent: A) May have never been given B) May have expired with the employment contracts C) May not apply at all if the monitoring party was not given authorization by the company
Secondly, did HD specify in his email any legalities of unauthorized reading. No.
These laws don't require senders or recipients to opt out of monitoring. PERIOD.
Thirdly, you need to realize what you've stated and your misinterpretation of the law. ECPA protects against INTERCEPTION. No interception occurred here, the mail was delivered to a recipient.
FALSE. ECPA applies to stored communication after delivery Wiretap act applies to communication in transit and therefore interception. Maybe you should review the overturned ruling on United States v. Councilman again.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." -- Plato
Maybe you should follow the advice of your own sig quote. tim _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- You shady bastards. H D Moore (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Tim (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Stack Smasher (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. J. Oquendo (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Tim (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. J. Oquendo (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Tim (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. J. Oquendo (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Tim (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. J. Oquendo (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Tim (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. matthew wollenweber (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Dude VanWinkle (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Larry Seltzer (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Dude VanWinkle (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Larry Seltzer (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. Dude VanWinkle (Jun 06)
- Re: You shady bastards. J. Oquendo (Jun 06)