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
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 go
- 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]
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'm not
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 most
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.
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
