Sunder wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
Call me cynical (no... go ahead), but if VOIP is found to have no 4th
Amendment protection, Congress would first have to agree that this *is*
a problem before thay could "fix" it. Given the recent track record of
legislators vs. privacy, I'm not at all confident Congress would
recognize the flaw, much less legislate to extend 4th Amendment
protection. After all, arent more and more POTS long-distance calls
being routed over IP? The only difference, really, is the point at
which audio is fed to the codec. If the codec is in the central office,
it's a "voice" call. If it's in the handset or local computer, it's
VOIP. I think we can count on the Ashcroftians to eventually notice
this and pounce upon the opportunity. And as for the SCOTUS, all they
have to do is sit back on a strict interpretation and such intercepts
aren't "wiretaps" at all.
If VOIP gets no protection, then you'll see a lot of "digital" bugs in
various spy shops again - and they'll all of a sudden be legal. I thought
the Feds busted lots of people for selling bugging equipment, etc. because
they're an invasion of privacy, etc.
Interesting counterpoint. Those busts were predicated on the violation
of existing laws, where of course the feds get to break those laws with
a good story and a judge's rubber sta.. er, I mean permission. So the
question becomes "how does the fed keep their ability to intercept
legally unprotected commo and at the same time, keep Joe Beets from
doing the same thing".
Ditto for devices that intercept digital cellular phone conversations,
spyware software that turns on the microphone in your computer and sends
the bits out over the internet, ditto for tempest'ing equipment ("But
your honor, it's stored for 1/60th of a second in the phosphor! It's a
storage medium!"), etc.
The Tempest argument is a stretch, only because you're not actually
recovering the information from the phosphor itself. But the Pandora
argument is well taken.
Hey, they can't have their cake and eat it too. It's either protected or
it isn't.
Not that they won't try, though. Or that they wouldn't opt toward
unprotecting everything if the opportunity presented itself.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not
"It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFS
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com
