You're right. Forgot about that thing. Wait, I can't admit to being wrong on this list (that would be too genuine) so pretend that I disagreed with you and made some lame-brained argument that makes you look like the bad guy. That would make it par for the course ;-)
To make it easier, you smell :-) Michael Corrigan Programmer Endora Digital Solutions www.endoradigital.com 630/942-5211 x-134 ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry Lyons To: CF-Community Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 10:19 AM Subject: RE: Two points and then back to work Yes, but with the new so called American Patriotism Act, roving electronic wiretaps (i.e.., Carnivore) would not require the same judicial protections as current wiretap laws. larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 11:15 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Two points and then back to work > > > Where did you hear that? This is from the FBI website. It's > the link > that I posted just a few minutes ago. > > "Under Title III, applications for interception require the > authorization of a high-level Department of Justice (DOJ) official > before the local United States Attorneys offices can apply for such > orders. Interception orders must be filed with federal district court > judges or before other courts of competent jurisdiction. " > > That would make you wrong. > > Michael Corrigan > Programmer > Endora Digital Solutions > www.endoradigital.com > 630/942-5211 x-134 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Larry Lyons > To: CF-Community > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 10:09 AM > Subject: RE: Two points and then back to work > > > However wiretaps require a warrant from a court, Carnivore does not > have > this requirement. Personally I think that before installing or > activating > Carnivore should require an equivalent warrant. > > larry > > -- > Larry C. Lyons > ColdFusion/Web Developer > EBStor.com > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > tel: (703) 393-7930 > fax: (703) 393-2659 > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > http://www.pacel.com > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > -- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 10:52 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Two points and then back to work > > > > > > Carnivore is considered, by law, to be akin to something like > > wire tapping - so, just like phone companies can't > refuse, neither > can > > ISP's. > > > > Howie > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kevin Gilchrist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 10:48 AM > > Subject: RE: Two points and then back to work > > > > > > > Far better to grab the keys and passwords that to force > > decrypt packets, > > > heh heh. > > > > > > From what I'd heard a lot of ISP's had baulked at > > installing Carnivore > > > until 9/11 after which time, I could have sworn I read > > somewhere, that > > > legislation was pushed through mandating the installation? > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
