funsec mailing list archives
Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act?
From: Matthew Murphy <mattmurphy () kc rr com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:57:15 -0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 28, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Adam Jacob Muller wrote:
What if Starbucks put WEP (or WPA) on, but hung a sign with the key? Does (or should) that still fall under section 1? -Adam
ECPA would be satisfied because the communication is encrypted. The act doesn't contain any provisions limiting the disclosure of the key.
Ironically, it might be found under Section 632 that a "reasonable expectation of confidentiality" did not exist, because the encryption key was on the door. However, if that sign contained phrasing similar to:
"Wireless network is provided for customer use only. Joining our wireless network or utilizing the access key provided here represents an agreement not to use the network for any illegal purpose and to respect the privacy of other network users. Interception of network traffic is expressly prohibited, and may be a violation of state and federal law."
Then the obligation of users not to sniff the network, which was established by their use of the key to associate with the wireless LAN, is probably sufficient to establish an expectation of privacy under 632 as well.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iQIVAwUBRjO1K3XzqEAiV8M/AQI2og//YKFiBC/v/i8LOQUTbGtecRHdlzW0AjTH GOsB6KIP4kPSw9g/N9HlqCT/kkskrUzXfoDtPVpwHD8pTfMahv4ulUXig+IBnV+V Qm9egSeuEg4usVYwLx3lh2j3rca05TcegI6I2dQub+z4o+XaFOogtVucj4+mYUsw IQi5JR9S78bjeUvp89M2WJSkD+rwb0bvVF0zJMjTkRsjnHLSTrlyu7jc2ML0B+GH LpCv0e9cF3l2tGmAHsMDRWgDoGwLWddYyItma6ywV4OA6BcAyndCU8pst+TnR3ST uw1KVC69oyzHn1YEGbNwau8pIFa+ctCOcr0I1MeLWiEaaUf5kl+MrPqOnB3BP09A lAahs+p+Ng0Eigk+qGrX1SSF1LZoU5GZwzOLg1pPadKFO69wYxYr3ISyhHbEN637 WX/nG8ITfc3u2YecNwatIRNd8eSiEViGg/636JOo4AdUIBgIailwJSxpZXbbLZx1 twENzzRcs/LXOlmnYH6WiJt2zVyRMs7spgXU6m6nJBylxIJ0DFIedbgbHY2V8AlF z5VSMXttdQIBq/nJsGIH0nkESsb0YepQOpPmhsHnXRNMxFv1iB7eKpsvHrIna4lW UcxeOX2UfQZWkDtz3V2fowPGn5ljt3xy1lHOFrF0CBkLQ1/Gf2x/uzw44sj0MXGb dmuIrxzBOVU= =p/Bl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)