Tim May wrote:
A mighty fine statement.
I'll add that too often requests come this way to learn
who is downloading docs from Cryptome. Sorry, we
say, no way to know that unless you got an in with
our ISP's legal department who we understand from
reading the newspapers has an informal arrangement
with the authorities to do what the law forbids.
A recent federal case in Brooklyn heard testimony from
AOL reps that it had a firm privacy policy of never
disclosing private communications without a
court order, but that the legal department regularly
reported to the FBI instances of what it believed
to be illegal activity by AOL customers.
The way it works is that there are snitches in various
AOL forums who complain to AOL about objectionable
activity, then AOL is obliged to investigate and perhaps
report to the Feds its findings. AOL can honestly state
it does not monitor is users, but must investigate
customer complaints.
Some, maybe all, of the snitches are feds posing as
AOL customers. They too can honestly state they
are not illegally surveilling, merely complaining to
AOL as morally upright customers about objectionable
behavior.
That is the procedure allegedly followed by Exodus
some months back, and may indicate a widespead
complicity among the bigger ISPs' legal and
customer service departments and the feds to get
around ECPA.
The FBI testified in Brooklyn that its hands are tied,
once a report of illegal activity is made they must
investigate.
What is not clear is whether the objectionable acitivity
was instigated and promoted by the snitches.
Similarly, to return to Tim's statement, it is not clear
if those who object to his strong views are trying to
instigate statements by him that go over the legal
line.
As we have seen here from time to time others induced
to rise to the bait. One or two of whom got federally
vacationed for their efforts.
Now we are sure that none of the CDRs would do
that.
