Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: RE: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:09:10 -0400
From: Chris Savage <chris.savage () crblaw com> To: "'farber () cis upenn edu'" <farber () cis upenn edu>, ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com Subject: RE: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:06:51 -0400 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)-----Original Message----- From: Dave Farber [mailto:farber () cis upenn edu] Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 4:27 PM To: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com Subject: IP: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS I will let the readers determine whether the actions of many have been trying to undermine the BofR. DaveFrom: "Baker, Stewart" <SBaker () steptoe com> To: "'farber () cis upenn edu'" <farber () cis upenn edu> cc: "Albertazzie, Sally" <SAlbertazzie () steptoe com> [ I wonder if the law they say " U.S. law enforcement groups are also hamstrung by laws that allow cybercriminals to escape detection and capture." is also called the Bill of Rights djf] That's not fair, Dave. I don't know any Justice officials who would criticize the Bill of Rights as hamstringing law enforcement. More likely this is a reference to the lack of procedures for a nationwide "trap and trace" order that would allow the government to trackhackersfrom one US host to another without having to get a separate order in a local court for each host. It's fair to ask questions about this Justice proposal, but I haven't heard anyone argue that it violates the Bill ofRights. Big, big picture question here: On some level if the Internet (writ large) is a form of public place, then it should be no big deal for law enforcement to "watch" it, just as law enforcement can post officers on as many street corners as it can afford, whether in uniform or in mufti. If everyone understood that their activities on the Internet were "public" in the same sense that their activities in the park were "public," they could then decide what, if anything, to do about it. Proliferation of strong encryption comes to mind, but that would depend on a lot of factors, obviously. On the other hand, the dominant legal view as I understand it is that the individual networks that make up the Internet are not public at all, but private, kind of like a country club. People are allowed in to do what they do by virtue of licenses paid for by the users (or others) and subject to revocation, etc. If law enforcement wants to track what goes on in private places -- even country clubs -- law enforcement needs warrants. I'm not at all sure that there is any effective consensus on "public" vs. "private" as a model for Internet activity. So folks with differing interests can legitimately reach very, very different conclusions about what behavior is appropriate, either for individuals, companies, or government agencies. Chris S. *************************************************************************** This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information. If you believe that you have received the message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. ***************************************************************************
Current thread:
- IP: RE: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS Dave Farber (May 22)