Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack - ethics
From: John Hall <j.hall () f5 com>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 14:11:30 -0800
I am not a lawyer and apparently neither are you, but I bet Comcast is quite fully covered by section 2511.2d, if you check your terms of service. It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State. It is arguable whether this section is even applicable to an ISP sniffing customer's traffic. Unfortunately in the US, ISP's are not "common carriers" by the FCC definition and don't have to follow any of the restrictions required of them. Nor are they "persons acting under color of law" (who, under Bush's new anti-terror law, can now do just about whatever they want). So far the current legal decisions seem to allow an ISP or other Internet service (such as a business providing Internet access to it's employees) to do just about anything to or with the resulting network traffic. Regrettably, if you sign (or otherwise agree to) terms of service that remove any of the (surprisingly few) rights you have with regards to your electronic communications, you won't really be able to gain any traction in a legal complaint and complaining to everyone here is probably preaching to the choir. Run for office, I might vote for you. JMH J Edgar Hoover wrote: ...
This is consistent with how I understand the applicable federal law as posted at; http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2511.html
...
z
Current thread:
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack, (continued)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack jon schatz (Feb 08)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack J Edgar Hoover (Feb 08)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack jon schatz (Feb 08)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack J Edgar Hoover (Feb 08)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack jon schatz (Feb 08)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack Crist J. Clark (Feb 09)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack Alen Capalik (Feb 09)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack - tech J Edgar Hoover (Feb 09)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack - ethics J Edgar Hoover (Feb 09)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack - ethics Blue Boar (Feb 09)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack - ethics John Hall (Feb 10)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack - ethics J Edgar Hoover (Feb 10)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack J Edgar Hoover (Feb 08)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack jon schatz (Feb 08)
- RE: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack Thomas J. Arseneault (Feb 08)
- Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack J Edgar Hoover (Feb 08)