IP: RE: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> 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.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > > From: "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 track
> hackers
> > > from 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 of
> Rights.
>
> 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.
> ***************************************************************************