The only "property" in a tweet or email is intellectual property, and that remains the property of the sender... in my jurisdiction, at least, which isn't even a US one.
Also, this is the most pathetic nerd-fight I have seen for many a year. 2009/11/10 Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com> > I fail to see how that applies. The law of bailment basically means that > you continue to own a possession, the physical possession of which you > *temporarily* grant to another party. (Allowing someone to drive your car, > for example, but expecting them to return it when they're done.) > > When you send a twitter or email, etc., you don't have any intention of > continuing to possess the "property". The reason you sent the > communication is so that someone else could *receive* it from you, not so > they could "watch" it for you temporarily. When you send a letter to > someone you don't continue to possess the letter. The recipient does. > > --On Monday, November 09, 2009 10:40 AM -0500 glenn.everh...@chase.com > wrote: > > > The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on > > wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public > > domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent). > > However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even > > though it has been around for hundreds of years. > > > > (mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for > > myself.) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul > > Schmehl > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM > > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street > > > > --On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelito...@hushmail.com wrote: > > > >> > >>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even > >> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant. > >> > >> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is > >> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason" > >> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You > >> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when > >> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the > >> meaning of the law. > > > > Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law > > enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than > > military > > intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter > > toward enemies the military has to deal with. > > > >> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to > >> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil > >> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their > >> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do > >> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power > >> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are > >> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen > >> again. > >> > > > > Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that > > people > > in government have the same range of motives that people not in > > government > > have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also > > pointed > > out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There > > > > are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk > > > > of life. > > > >>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. > >> > >> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact. > >> > >>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people > >> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access > >> to the data on their computers. > >> > >> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to > >> my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that > >> prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer > >> informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to > >> your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you > >> want to take a look at my property. > > > > Therein lies the rub. Whose property are the bits on the wire? Once > > you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does > > that transmission still belong to you? I would submit that it does not, > > > > and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and belongings > > > > can no longer be sensibly applied. > > > > Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in > > the > > process of transmission? > > > >> And as far as I know, there's > >> no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to > >> monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my > >> mobile phone contract. > >> > > > > Really? To whom does your response to me belong? What about the email > > you send to a friend? A stranger? And twitter posts? Blog comments? > > Etc., etc. Does it really make sense to extend your privacy rights to > > those things that you have sent into the public domain? And how do you > > draw the line legally at what the government can look at without a > > warrant > > and what they must get a warrant for when they can't even know what's on > > > > the network without first connecting to it to look? Should we forbid > > them > > to ever connect simply because something they could potentially see is > > "private"? And is it really private? > > > > And if they already have a warrant to monitor all communications of a > > known terrorist, what happens when those communications include a US > > person? All they allowed to monitor since they already have a warrant, > > even though they don't have one for the US person? > > > >>> From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost > >> impossible. > >> > >> Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's an idea. Make it easier > >> to get that warrant when you need it. Improve the process, so that > >> when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days. > >> Don't remove the requirement altogether. That's simply inviting > >> trouble. > >> > > > > I completely agree. I also think the definitions need to be much > > clearer, > > so that intelligence people understand exactly where the fences are. > > And > > I don't think a warrant should be required unless a US person is the > > *target* of the monitoring. > > > > Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already > > obvious, my opinions are my own > > and not those of my employer. > > ****************************************** > > WARNING: Check the headers before replying > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > This transmission may contain information that is privileged, > > confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure > > under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you > > are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or > > use of the information contained herein (including any reliance > > thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and > > any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other > > defect that might affect any computer system into which it is > > received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to > > ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by > > JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as > > applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. > > If you received this transmission in error, please immediately > > contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, > > whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. > > > > > > Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst > As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions > are my own and not those of my employer. > ******************************************* > "It is as useless to argue with those who have > renounced the use of reason as to administer > medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/