It’s a bailment if I give a package to an agent to deliver somewhere too, but in that case the bailment
Ends when delivery occurs. From: s...@strawberrycupcak.es [mailto:s...@strawberrycupcak.es] On Behalf Of dramacrat Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:50 PM To: Paul Schmehl Cc: Everhart, Glenn (Card Services); full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street 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/