Chris Palmer writes:
-+--
|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| You know, as a security person, I say all the time that the greatest
| threat is internal threat, not external threat. In my day job, I/we
| make surveillance tools to prevent data threat from materializing, and
You know, as a security person, I say all the
time that the greatest threat is internal threat,
not external threat. In my day job, I/we make
surveillance tools to prevent data threat from
materializing, and to quench it if it does anyhow.
I tell clients all day every day that when the
opponent
David G. Koontz wrote:
Yet President Bush as publicly stated it requires a court order to
wiretap:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way,
any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap,
it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You know, as a security person, I say all the time that the greatest
threat is internal threat, not external threat. In my day job, I/we
make surveillance tools to prevent data threat from materializing, and
to quench it if it does anyhow. I tell clients all day
Clinton's Asst. A.G.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?
coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
Dick Morris
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm
--dan
-
The Cryptography Mailing
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 07:55:57PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
[...]
The Court also noted that Congress rejected an amendment which would
have authorized such governmental seizures in cases of emergency.
Given that the Patriot Act did amend various aspects of the wiretap
statute, it's
Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A small editorial from your moderator. I rarely use this list to
express a strong political opinion -- you will forgive me in this
instance.
A couple of people have written to ask if they can forward on this
message elsewhere. Yes, I am happy with
At 10:58 AM 12/18/2005, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
The President claims he has the prerogative to order such
surveillance. The law unambiguously disagrees with him.
There are minor exceptions in the law, but they clearly do not apply
in this case. They cover only the 15 days after a declaration of
Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 10:58 AM 12/18/2005, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
The President claims he has the prerogative to order such
surveillance. The law unambiguously disagrees with him.
There are minor exceptions in the law, but they clearly do not apply
in this case. They cover
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry E. Metzger writes:
I have been unable to find any evidence in the text of said
resolutions that they in any way altered or amended the law on this,
even temporarily. Perhaps it is the argument of the President's
lawyers that something analogous to a state of
10 matches
Mail list logo
