funsec mailing list archives
RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act?
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms () computerbytesman com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:22:38 -0400
I personally would hate to stake my future freedom on a grammer interpretation. ;-) Want to take a crack at the California law next: PENAL CODE SECTION 630-638 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000& file=630-638 Richard -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Murphy [mailto:mattmurphy531 () gmail com] On Behalf Of Matthew Murphy Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:08 PM To: Richard M. Smith Cc: funsec () linuxbox org Subject: Re: [funsec] Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 28, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Richard M. Smith wrote:
Matt, What about (16)(F) then: (16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not-- (F) an electronic communication
The law reads: ...the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; *or* (F) an electronic communication; The notation is confusing, but I read it as: ((not (A) and not (B) and not (C) and not (D) and not (E)) or not (F)) There are several potential interpretations here, and only one seems reasonable: 1. ECPA states that any communication which is *not* any of the six classes defined in (16) is "readily accessible to the public". Under this interpretation, telephone calls, long held to be protected communication, would be made subject to warrantless interception by the general public post-ECPA, as they are not encrypted or scrambled. 2. ECPA states that any communication which is *not* *all* of the six classes defined in (16) is "readily accessible to the public." This interpretation would be in error, because it would functionally ask the presiding judge to disregard the word 'or' before (16)(F). What's more, (16), interpreted in this manner, would exclude *all electronic communications* from interception, which would make the use of radio scanners by the public to pick up police/fire/medical traffic illegal, thus banning the media from following reports of e.g., traffic accidents. 3. ECPA states that any of the communication types listed in (16)(A)- (16)(E) are subject to interception *if* they are electronic in nature (hence the 'or'). This would make more sense. If you interpret (16)(F) as blocking surveillance of electronic communications, the preceding sections don't make much sense. If the law were interpreted differently, my oral and written communications would have to be encrypted, transmitted using non-public modulation techniques (yodeling? hieroglyphic substitution?), carried on a subcarrier (here pidgey, pidgey, pidgey...), carried by a common carrier (mail might meet this), or transmitted over a frequency allocated by the FCC for broadcast purposes (tin cans on street corners excluded, sorry). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iQIVAwUBRjPFs3XzqEAiV8M/AQL9+g//WA750CA9Ergme/HzVYvW7+esCKFPe4DQ v8B1PYkvZISkQelwS2STAtihW4jlpj3gDgwgRcfzPK13+ANQGsN9O7+LabJFHnMK +ahpJdeDK9zzUrBIp2wjf4HuLtB64tDk9X1kHv5GM9L0LOSkB/1dTT5n8/Ktqvvc ytHj9RgC1tiy0lp090rCY+FjM557u8uhjTxFRuqAvXhBxtWF6InvpH77/vzt+SCU fnll25CTTE5c3B8gIanSTchGRdS/7G6EwYmJFah+rrUhSAwR1uHVuRS9vOmmktuy 7ChwGuBCaVTAp8fpo6Yvo11Iik5sZ7zSYUPk8Lsep6HhBEJaMf8niwfzFc6UIFdP 8T+XI4vMsKtZWGPxWKp08O+BvnAio+4ihioFvjlkRxQWA+iVI07qXgwB47BdssNO Qkkp9dfJUxfNM7W5rgFW+eHZeLndI5OENLbsu+SlOJvK74iorxFNNs4t7+aVajnJ +7XcN5zfH8OL+x749YF8TRJvdRI1Kblg0Uu6w+NnUTSGmZlpj6lLxtOoE5cnQ0WD Rj2CZTk15NouKoggLN2F/tDP25Tps7bntqH8xy4YydQNr/ogejxzU0KBkJyTzcfn 6OARveqhvn/E5hz/Mbia3uvCuhC/5p/XlnMh7f+kPs6ytBnWJlnXW7Y9i5TWaILd Wq+RJKHBk8s= =CqFk -----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)