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.DTL&tsp=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 for our company. We have had
three this year and two in the last four weeks...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/