On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:57:02 -0500 Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Krassimir Tzvetanov > <mailli...@krassi.biz> wrote: > > While I'm not a lawyer and my opinion is in noway authoritive I do > > not believe there is any violation. They ay be an accessory to a > > potential crime but they themselves did not do the tapping. > > > > Now on the other hand those companies that did the tapping should be > > OK for as long as they are clear with the employees that they cannot > > expect privacy, which usually is the case. Usually this is in the > > paperwork you sing when you start working there in the section > > privacy policy. > Two questions: > > (1) How can a company actively attack a secure channel and tamper with > communications if there are federal laws prohibiting it? It seems to > me they can only take the role of passive adversaries and still comply > with US law, Plenty of companies install monitoring software on their employees' workstations and listen to employee phone calls, which is generally legal: https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm > (2) Did the other end of the SSL/TLS tunnel also agree to be > monitored? Does that matter? -- Ben -- Benjamin R Kreuter UVA Computer Science brk...@virginia.edu KK4FJZ -- "If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them." - George Orwell
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
