At 07:45 AM 05/02/2001 -0700, David Honig wrote:
>Yeah but is there a (contract etc.) *law* being broken or is this a
>legally-null claim? After all, if click-through EULAs are legally binding...
Maybe a real lawyer could tell you. The answer may depend on whether
there's valuable consideration
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 07:56:34PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Eric Murray wrote:
>
> > ...I most definitely agree with Tim
> > and Bill that the best way to deal
> > with this is [keeping logs] thru
> > technology.
>
> Careful, you're beginning to sound like a Cypherpunk. :-D
Careful with
At 10:12 PM 5/2/01 -0700, Anonymous wrote:
>
>Seems to me that secure digital timestamps on the logs
>would be really interesting to anyone wanting to preserve
>their usefulness as evidence.
>
If you protected some logs (say, local user logins) really well,
and left other logs (say HTTP) unprote
At 11:36 AM 5/2/01 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
>In any scenario, it seems like a few points are likely to be crucial -
>
>1. Was the logging foreseeable at the time the statement/promise
>regarding "no logging" was made?
>If there was no intentional misrepresention, pretty much everything exc
At 9:20 AM -0500 5/3/01, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>Tim May wrote:
>
>> The asymmetry arises this way: almost _never_ does an ISP/operator
>
>> benefit from having logs, but prosecutors can use logs to prove various
>> crimes and thoughtcrimes.
>>
>
> Well, that's not quite true -- logs are pr
Tim May wrote:
> The asymmetry arises this way: almost _never_ does an ISP/operator
> benefit from having logs, but prosecutors can use logs to prove various
> crimes and thoughtcrimes.
>
Well, that's not quite true -- logs are pretty useful, in fact even
necessary, for a number of things
On Wednesday, May 2, 2001, at 10:12 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> At 11:00 PM 05/01/2001 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>> Has anyone given any though to how log files could be accepted as
>> evidence in the first place? They're just text files, and exceedingly
>> trivial to alter, forge, erase, what
At 11:00 PM 05/01/2001 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Has anyone given any though to how log files could be accepted as
>evidence in the first place? They're just text files, and exceedingly
>trivial to alter, forge, erase, whatever. They get edited all the time
>by hackers -- how can anyone,
Eric Murray wrote:
> ...I most definitely agree with Tim
> and Bill that the best way to deal
> with this is [keeping logs] thru
> technology.
Careful, you're beginning to sound like a Cypherpunk. :-D
S a n d y
At 11:00 PM 05/01/2001 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Has anyone given any though to how log files could be accepted as
>evidence in the first place? They're just text files, and exceedingly
>trivial to alter, forge, erase, whatever. They get edited all the time
>by hackers -- how can anyone,
At 12:34 AM 5/2/2001 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>Greg Broiles wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Can you identify any problems with log files as evidence which aren't
> > also present in, say, eyewitness testimony, audiotape recordings, video
> > recordings, fingerprints, photographs, tool & die marks, paper reco
At 08:05 PM 5/1/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
>Honig:
>
>> Is it in fact a crime of fraud to advertise that you don't keep logs
>> when in fact you do?
>
>Seems deceptive...
Yeah but is there a (contract etc.) *law* being broken or is this a
legally-null
claim? After all, if click-through EULAs ar
On Wednesday, May 2, 2001, at 07:45 AM, David Honig wrote:
> At 08:05 PM 5/1/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
>> For
>> example, while there is no 'requirement' or 'reg' to keep email,
>> American
>> courts have '$trongly $ugge$ted' doing so pursuant to a good faith
>> electronic document retention p
Greg Broiles wrote:
> Hmm. Can you identify any problems with log files as evidence which aren't
> also present in, say, eyewitness testimony, audiotape recordings, video
> recordings, fingerprints, photographs, tool & die marks, paper records, and
> all of the other evidence which courts admit o
At 11:00 PM 5/1/2001 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Has anyone given any though to how log files could be accepted as
>evidence in the first place? They're just text files, and exceedingly
>trivial to alter, forge, erase, whatever. They get edited all the time
>by hackers -- how can anyone,
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:03 PM
Subject: RE: layered deception
> On Tue, 1 May 2001, David Honig wrote:
>
> >Is it in fact a crime of fraud to advertise that you don't keep logs
> >when in fact you do?
>
> If someone winds up losing money (or
Has anyone given any though to how log files could be accepted as
evidence in the first place? They're just text files, and exceedingly
trivial to alter, forge, erase, whatever. They get edited all the time
by hackers -- how can anyone, even the sysadmin, swear that they are
"true"? We just
On Tue, 1 May 2001, David Honig wrote:
>Is it in fact a crime of fraud to advertise that you don't keep logs
>when in fact you do?
If someone winds up losing money (or suffering other damages)
because of it, it is at least a tort. If you were planning
some kind of money-making scam that hinge
Tim:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2001, at 06:05 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
>
> > Honig:
> >
> >> Is it in fact a crime of fraud to advertise that you don't keep logs
> >> when in fact you do?
> >
> > Seems deceptive...
> >
>
> A profound new insight.
deceptive trade practices depend on context
> We still a
At 12:13 AM 4/30/01 -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
>i agree...unless you're specifically directed to do so, maintaining log
>files is completely optional.
Is it in fact a crime of fraud to advertise that you don't keep logs
when in fact you do?
On Tuesday, May 1, 2001, at 06:05 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
> Honig:
>
>> Is it in fact a crime of fraud to advertise that you don't keep logs
>> when in fact you do?
>
> Seems deceptive...
>
A profound new insight.
We still await some real insights from a real graduate student (!),
beyond her say
Honig:
> Is it in fact a crime of fraud to advertise that you don't keep logs
> when in fact you do?
Seems deceptive...
I look for the continued development of tortious evidentiary spoliation in a
digital context, which includes negative legal presumptions, sanctions up to
default judgmen
Steve,
Even assuming that what you say is true, and I suspect it is,
you'd be relying on protections enshrined in the law. The purpose
of this treaty, of course, is to change the law. :)
-Declan
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:07:33AM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> At 10:56 AM 4/30/2001 -0400, Declan
At 10:56 AM 4/30/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:24:09PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> > What if the sysadmin is intentionally located in an offshore location so
> > that they cannot be kept from notifying all users of the logging order?
>
>Then we pass a "cybercrim
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:24:09PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> What if the sysadmin is intentionally located in an offshore location so
> that they cannot be kept from notifying all users of the logging order?
Then we pass a "cybercrime" treaty to require them to follow U.S. laws.
Law enforcem
At 12:04 AM 4/30/2001 -0500, Kevin L Prigge wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:13:01AM -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
> > i agree...unless you're specifically directed to do so, maintaining log
> > files is completely optional. there are no regs requiring isps or websites
> > or mail providers to
Kevin wrote:
> It's a written notice...
>From whom? Hell, I could send you a "notice."
> ...that a search warrant is being
> prepared. The ECPA allows for orders
> to preserve electronic evidence
> (section 2704 deals with this).
All that 2704 (http://www.usiia.org/legis/ecpa.html#s2704) spea
On Sunday, April 29, 2001, at 10:59 PM, Kevin L Prigge wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:11:40PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>> Kevin wrote:
>>
>>> From recent experience, LE provides us
>>> with an order to preserve certain logged
>>> information. The order is in advance of
>>> obtaining a s
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:11:40PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
>
> > From recent experience, LE provides us
> > with an order to preserve certain logged
> > information. The order is in advance of
> > obtaining a search warrant...
>
> What form do these "orders" take? Who, spec
Kevin wrote:
> From recent experience, LE provides us
> with an order to preserve certain logged
> information. The order is in advance of
> obtaining a search warrant...
What form do these "orders" take? Who, specifically, makes the order? What
authority is cited to back up the power to make
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:13:01AM -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
> i agree...unless you're specifically directed to do so, maintaining log
> files is completely optional. there are no regs requiring isps or websites
> or mail providers to do so, other than the standard 'you need to comply with
>
i agree...unless you're specifically directed to do so, maintaining log
files is completely optional. there are no regs requiring isps or websites
or mail providers to do so, other than the standard 'you need to comply with
a court order or search warrant, etc.'
as for the 'encrypt it' or 'store
On Sunday, April 29, 2001, at 07:41 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> I think Matt is a bit too quick to conclude a court will charge the
> operator with contempt and that the contempt charge will stick on
> appeal. Obviously judges have a lot of discretion, but it doesn't seem
> to me like the qu
Declan wrote:
> I rather like the idea of encrypting
> the logs on the fly and shipping them
> offshore. Your offshore partner will
> be instructed to turn over the logs
> only if you are not asking for them
> under duress. (A reasonable protocol
> can probably be worked out. Would a
> court orde
34 matches
Mail list logo
