Re: [IP] more on more on E-mail intercept ruling - good grief!! (fwd from dave@farber.net)

2004-07-05 Thread Bill Stewart
At 10:50 AM 7/2/2004, 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. While Peter Swire is a much better judge of court behavior than I am (

Re: [IP] more on more on E-mail intercept ruling - good grief!! (fwd from dave@farber.net)

2004-07-03 Thread Tyler Durden
I dunno...as an ex-optical engineer/physicst, I'm sceptical about this whole scary "tempest" bullcrap. Even if it can be made to work fairly reliably, I suspect deploying it is extremely costly. In contrast, the main benefit of CALEA is that they can merely provision their copy of a circuit to g

Re: [IP] more on more on E-mail intercept ruling - good grief!! (fwd from dave@farber.net)

2004-07-02 Thread Roy M. Silvernail
Eugen Leitl forwarded: The constitutional question is whether users have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in VOIP phone calls. Since the 1960's, the Supreme Court has found a 4th Amendment protection for voice phone calls. Meanwhile, it has found no constitutional protection for stored reco

Re: [IP] more on more on E-mail intercept ruling - good grief!! (fwd from dave@farber.net)

2004-07-02 Thread Roy M. Silvernail
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. priv

Re: [IP] more on more on E-mail intercept ruling - good grief!! (fwd from dave@farber.net)

2004-07-02 Thread Sunder
> 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. Actually there is optical tempest now that works by watching the flicker of a CRT. Point is actually even more moot since mos

Re: [IP] more on more on E-mail intercept ruling - good grief!! (fwd from dave@farber.net)

2004-07-02 Thread Sunder
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'

[IP] more on more on E-mail intercept ruling - good grief!! (fwd from dave@farber.net)

2004-07-02 Thread Eugen Leitl
- Forwarded message from David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:07:14 -0400 To: Ip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [IP] more on more on E-mail intercept ruling - good grief!! X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]