Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: You shady bastards.
From: "J. Oquendo" <sil () infiltrated net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:57:52 -0400

Tim wrote:
As mentioned multiple times by multiple posters, but apparently eluded
your reading, the recipient's consent:

 A) May have never been given
 B) May have expired with the employment contracts
 C) May not apply at all if the monitoring party was not given


    authorization by the company

You're basing your arguments on assumption...

A) I don't know ... Do you?
B) Most contracts have expiry dates on NDA's if signed. More then likely with a security company.
C) You don't know. I don't know.

We can infer from B) and C) that 1) recipient worked for a security company. 2) More than likely signed an NDA or contractual agreement 3) Because they are a security company in place, they
*should have* had some form of policy in place detailing things.

So if 2 and 3 are correct, there is no law broken period. So re-posting:

/ *SNIPPET * /

"Courts have held that the wiretap law required interception in transmission before - finding that seizing of a computer gaming company's email, perusing a secure website under false pretenses, reading an independent insurance agent's corporate email, installing and using tracking cookies, and even hacking into a computer and retrieving email does not violate the wiretap law.
/ * STOP FOR A SECOND * /

See the last sentence?

/* SNIPPET * /
The courts have observed that to "intercept" something, according to the dictionary, is "to stop, seize, or interrupt in progress or course before arrival" and therefore that "a contemporaneous interception - i.e., an acquisition during flight - is required to implicate the Wiretap Act.
/* STOP AGAIN */

See this last sentence?

/* SNIPPET */
Several court cases have upheld that checking email after transmission is legal (i.e. email auditing), since it is viewed as no different than searching through a file in an employee's drawer.
/* END SNIPPET */

So before I go on... May I ask you how many times have you dealt with these issues or
anything like them in court? Care to ask me the same?

See: "The Ordinary Course of Business Exception"
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/05/close_email_wiretap_loophole/
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.936:

--
====================================================
J. Oquendo
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743
echo infiltrated.net|sed 's/^/sil@/g'
"Wise men talk because they have something to say;
fools, because they have to say something." -- Plato


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]