Re: Using Brin to thwart ISP subpoenas
At 12:41 PM 1/3/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 06:16:48PM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: A year or two ago, I suggested to someone associated with http://www.thebunker.com (an ISP based in an underground ex-RAF bunker in Britain) that they set up a web-accessible camera on the entrance, so that anyone could detect an attack in progress. Hmm. Why couldn't any corporate officer of an ISP be served at home, on the golf course, in a car on the way to work, at a grocery store, etc.? And why couldn't the court order say be silent? If cypherpunks and the general pubilc know about such security practices, the TLAs would as well. One of my parallel suggestions was to have all the officers and directors non-resident foreigners. steve
Re: Using Brin to thwart ISP subpoenas
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 06:16:48PM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: A year or two ago, I suggested to someone associated with http://www.thebunker.com (an ISP based in an underground ex-RAF bunker in Britain) that they set up a web-accessible camera on the entrance, so that anyone could detect an attack in progress. Hmm. Why couldn't any corporate officer of an ISP be served at home, on the golf course, in a car on the way to work, at a grocery store, etc.? And why couldn't the court order say be silent? If cypherpunks and the general pubilc know about such security practices, the TLAs would as well. -Declan
Re: Using Brin to thwart ISP subpoenas
At 09:59 AM 12/20/2002 -0500, you wrote: Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:10:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Using Brin to thwart ISP subpoenas From: Charles Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] How long do you think it would be before the ISP described below would receive a cease and desist letter, ordering it to remove the cameras, in order to protect customer privacy? I guess it would depend on the ISP's posted privacy policy. There are no regulations, AFAIK, that set some minimum standard for customer privacy. If the ISP accepted only DMT or e-gold payments, which are anonymous, it would not be likely to reveal much about a customer's privacy during the course of normal office conversations except perhaps their email address. steve
Re: Using Brin to thwart ISP subpoenas
At 10:16 PM 12/22/2002 -0500, you wrote: On Sunday, Dec 22, 2002, at 21:28 US/Eastern, Steve Schear wrote: At 09:59 AM 12/20/2002 -0500, you wrote: Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:10:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Using Brin to thwart ISP subpoenas From: Charles Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] How long do you think it would be before the ISP described below would receive a cease and desist letter, ordering it to remove the cameras, in order to protect customer privacy? I guess it would depend on the ISP's posted privacy policy. There are no regulations, AFAIK, that set some minimum standard for customer privacy. The customer privacy part would be an excuse. Your legal-irony hack is too clever to stand unchallenged. It would be interesting. In a way it would be a test of Brin. One way might be to have property management companies build total surveillance into their leases. Could a court prevent a company from becoming transparent to its customers. If the ISP accepted only DMT or e-gold payments, which are anonymous, it would not be likely to reveal much about a customer's privacy during the course of normal office conversations except perhaps their email address. How do you mean anonymous? Do you mean untraceable? Well I'd never say untraceable, however, DMT does not require any meat space customer information. See https://196.40.46.24/ If you can't join 'em, beat 'em. -- W's global policy of hegenomy
RE: Using Brin to thwart ISP subpoenas
Steve Schear[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: This crackpot idea is a follow-on to my suggestion for improving public library privacy in the face of TLA inquiries. The basic notion here is for na ISP to allow all its premises to be bugged. Every room (except maybe the restroom) by its clients (or their proxies). All communication could be monitored and the ISP would have no control. My understanding of court orders that they must be served on the ISP at its business address. Once the order is opened or discussed by the designated employee who receives the data all its clients would know in short order. The employees and management will not have been responsible because they have not taken any affirmative actions to allow the information to escape their custody. They will have protected the info withe the same diligence they show their own data. ;-) steve A year or two ago, I suggested to someone associated with http://www.thebunker.com (an ISP based in an underground ex-RAF bunker in Britain) that they set up a web-accessible camera on the entrance, so that anyone could detect an attack in progress. They don't seem to have done so. Peter Trei
