[WISPA] Fw: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use
comments? Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: John Oram [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Since isp-wireless is now a political blog - here is something closer to on-topic :-) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTLtsp=1 SAN FRANCISCO Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Privacy rules don't apply to Internet messages, court says Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, July 7, 2007 Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor a suspect's computer use and determine the e-mail addresses and Web pages the suspect is contacting, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. In a drug case from San Diego County, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco likened computer surveillance to the pen register devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls themselves. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of pen registers in 1979, saying callers have no right to conceal from the government the numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that carry their calls. Federal law requires court approval for a pen register. But because it is not considered a search, authorities do not need a search warrant, which would require them to show that the surveillance is likely to produce evidence of a crime. They also do not need a wiretap order, which would require them to show that less intrusive methods of surveillance have failed or would be futile. In Friday's ruling, the court said computer users should know that they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses when they are communicated to the company whose equipment carries the messages. Likewise, the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed. The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. Defense lawyer Michael Crowley disagreed. His client, Dennis Alba, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being convicted of operating a laboratory in Escondido that manufactured the drug ecstasy. Some of the evidence against Alba came from agents' tracking of his computer use. The court upheld his conviction and sentence. Expert evidence in Alba's case showed that the Web addresses obtained by federal agents included page numbers that allowed the agents to determine what someone read online, Crowley said. The ruling further erodes our privacy, the attorney said. The great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the government has unbridled access to it. E-mail Bob Egelko at [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTL This article appeared on page B - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: comments? Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: John Oram [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Since isp-wireless is now a political blog - here is something closer to on-topic :-) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTLtsp=1 Well, I did see a bit of political chat on there the other day, but nobody got upset. I even participated. I'm not sure how this is closer to on-topic, but ... SAN FRANCISCO Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Privacy rules don't apply to Internet messages, court says Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, July 7, 2007 Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor a suspect's computer use and determine the e-mail addresses and Web pages the suspect is contacting, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. A subpoena *is* required. In a drug case from San Diego County, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco likened computer surveillance to the pen register devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls themselves. A subpoena *is* required. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of pen registers in 1979, saying callers have no right to conceal from the government the numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that carry their calls. A subpoena *is* required. Federal law requires court approval for a pen register. But because it is not considered a search, authorities do not need a search warrant, which would require them to show that the surveillance is likely to produce evidence of a crime. OK. This smacks of sensational journalism. The author is making all sorts of noise about the court declaring that you have the same right to privacy over your bank records as you do over addressing information on your paper mail as you do over the records of your browsing habits and your email contacts. This is about what is on the envelope, not what is in the envelope. They also do not need a wiretap order, which would require them to show that less intrusive methods of surveillance have failed or would be futile. Because they are not trying to do intercept, they do not need a wiretap order. No change in existing law. In Friday's ruling, the court said computer users should know that they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses when they are communicated to the company whose equipment carries the messages. In exactly the same way that they loose privacy protections with paper mail and magazine subscription information when you release that information to a company whose equipment carries the messages (the post office). Likewise, the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed. The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. Both of which require a subpoena. This author is writing this article to make sensational news of a non-news court decision. NO PRECEDENT was set here. Defense lawyer Michael Crowley disagreed. His client, Dennis Alba, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being convicted of operating a laboratory in Escondido that manufactured the drug ecstasy. Good. Some of the evidence against Alba came from agents' tracking of his computer use. The court upheld his conviction and sentence. Did they present a subpoena to his ISP? Expert evidence in Alba's case showed that the Web addresses obtained by federal agents included page numbers that allowed the agents to determine what someone read online, Crowley said. The expert was presumably the ISP. The information would then have had to be obtained under subpoena. Once the court orders the ISP to provide the evidentiary material the privacy statutes are satisfied The ruling further erodes our privacy, the attorney said. The great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the government has unbridled access to it. The attorney is either ignorant of the law he is pleading or he is grandstanding to try to get something from the court system which nobody else gets. I have had to satisfy two subpoena's in the past thirty days... I wonder how many other members of the committie have seen this kind of activity... Totally uncharacteristic
Re: [WISPA] Fw: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use
Been in business for over 3 years and haven't had one yet *knock on wood*. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Michael Erskine wrote: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: comments? Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: John Oram [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Since isp-wireless is now a political blog - here is something closer to on-topic :-) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTLtsp=1 Well, I did see a bit of political chat on there the other day, but nobody got upset. I even participated. I'm not sure how this is closer to on-topic, but ... SAN FRANCISCO Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Privacy rules don't apply to Internet messages, court says Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, July 7, 2007 Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor a suspect's computer use and determine the e-mail addresses and Web pages the suspect is contacting, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. A subpoena *is* required. In a drug case from San Diego County, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco likened computer surveillance to the pen register devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls themselves. A subpoena *is* required. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of pen registers in 1979, saying callers have no right to conceal from the government the numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that carry their calls. A subpoena *is* required. Federal law requires court approval for a pen register. But because it is not considered a search, authorities do not need a search warrant, which would require them to show that the surveillance is likely to produce evidence of a crime. OK. This smacks of sensational journalism. The author is making all sorts of noise about the court declaring that you have the same right to privacy over your bank records as you do over addressing information on your paper mail as you do over the records of your browsing habits and your email contacts. This is about what is on the envelope, not what is in the envelope. They also do not need a wiretap order, which would require them to show that less intrusive methods of surveillance have failed or would be futile. Because they are not trying to do intercept, they do not need a wiretap order. No change in existing law. In Friday's ruling, the court said computer users should know that they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses when they are communicated to the company whose equipment carries the messages. In exactly the same way that they loose privacy protections with paper mail and magazine subscription information when you release that information to a company whose equipment carries the messages (the post office). Likewise, the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed. The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. Both of which require a subpoena. This author is writing this article to make sensational news of a non-news court decision. NO PRECEDENT was set here. Defense lawyer Michael Crowley disagreed. His client, Dennis Alba, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being convicted of operating a laboratory in Escondido that manufactured the drug ecstasy. Good. Some of the evidence against Alba came from agents' tracking of his computer use. The court upheld his conviction and sentence. Did they present a subpoena to his ISP? Expert evidence in Alba's case showed that the Web addresses obtained by federal agents included page numbers that allowed the agents to determine what someone read online, Crowley said. The expert was presumably the ISP. The information would then have had to be obtained under subpoena. Once the court orders the ISP to provide the evidentiary material the privacy statutes are satisfied The ruling further erodes our privacy, the attorney said. The great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the government has unbridled access to it. The attorney is either ignorant of the law he is pleading or he is grandstanding to try to get something from the court system which nobody else gets. I have had to satisfy two subpoena's
Re: [WISPA] Fw: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use
We are seeing about one per month right now. Mainly child porn stuff. :( Travis Microserv Sam Tetherow wrote: Been in business for over 3 years and haven't had one yet *knock on wood*. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Michael Erskine wrote: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: comments? Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: John Oram [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Since isp-wireless is now a political blog - here is something closer to on-topic :-) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTLtsp=1 Well, I did see a bit of political chat on there the other day, but nobody got upset. I even participated. I'm not sure how this is closer to on-topic, but ... SAN FRANCISCO Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Privacy rules don't apply to Internet messages, court says Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, July 7, 2007 Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor a suspect's computer use and determine the e-mail addresses and Web pages the suspect is contacting, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. A subpoena *is* required. In a drug case from San Diego County, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco likened computer surveillance to the pen register devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls themselves. A subpoena *is* required. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of pen registers in 1979, saying callers have no right to conceal from the government the numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that carry their calls. A subpoena *is* required. Federal law requires court approval for a pen register. But because it is not considered a search, authorities do not need a search warrant, which would require them to show that the surveillance is likely to produce evidence of a crime. OK. This smacks of sensational journalism. The author is making all sorts of noise about the court declaring that you have the same right to privacy over your bank records as you do over addressing information on your paper mail as you do over the records of your browsing habits and your email contacts. This is about what is on the envelope, not what is in the envelope. They also do not need a wiretap order, which would require them to show that less intrusive methods of surveillance have failed or would be futile. Because they are not trying to do intercept, they do not need a wiretap order. No change in existing law. In Friday's ruling, the court said computer users should know that they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses when they are communicated to the company whose equipment carries the messages. In exactly the same way that they loose privacy protections with paper mail and magazine subscription information when you release that information to a company whose equipment carries the messages (the post office). Likewise, the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed. The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. Both of which require a subpoena. This author is writing this article to make sensational news of a non-news court decision. NO PRECEDENT was set here. Defense lawyer Michael Crowley disagreed. His client, Dennis Alba, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being convicted of operating a laboratory in Escondido that manufactured the drug ecstasy. Good. Some of the evidence against Alba came from agents' tracking of his computer use. The court upheld his conviction and sentence. Did they present a subpoena to his ISP? Expert evidence in Alba's case showed that the Web addresses obtained by federal agents included page numbers that allowed the agents to determine what someone read online, Crowley said. The expert was presumably the ISP. The information would then have had to be obtained under subpoena. Once the court orders the ISP to provide the evidentiary material the privacy statutes are satisfied The ruling further erodes our privacy, the attorney said. The great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the government has unbridled access to it. The attorney is either ignorant of the law he is pleading or he is
