Home page logo

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
From: <Glenn.Everhart () chase com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:49:53 -0500

It’s a bailment if I give a package to an agent to deliver somewhere too, but in that case the bailment

Ends when delivery occurs.


From: syr () strawberrycupcak es [mailto:syr () strawberrycupcak es] On Behalf Of dramacrat
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:50 PM
To: Paul Schmehl
Cc: Everhart, Glenn (Card Services); full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street


The only "property" in a tweet or email is intellectual property, and that remains the property of the sender... in my 
jurisdiction, at least, which isn't even a US one.

Also, this is the most pathetic nerd-fight I have seen for many a year.

2009/11/10 Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists () tx rr com>

I fail to see how that applies.  The law of bailment basically means that
you continue to own a possession, the physical possession of which you
*temporarily* grant to another party.  (Allowing someone to drive your car,
for example, but expecting them to return it when they're done.)

When you send a twitter or email, etc., you don't have any intention of
continuing to possess the "property".  The reason you sent the
communication is so that someone else could *receive* it from you, not so
they could "watch" it for you temporarily.  When you send a letter to
someone you don't continue to possess the letter.  The recipient does.

--On Monday, November 09, 2009 10:40 AM -0500 Glenn.Everhart () chase com

The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on
wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public
domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent).
However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even
though it has been around for hundreds of years.

(mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of Paul
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM
To: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street

--On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelitoris () hushmail com wrote:

But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even
if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant.

This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is
changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason"
is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion".  You
must apply the warrant requirement consistently.  Otherwise, when
interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the
meaning of the law.

Sure.  I agree with that.  I think it's also important that law
enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than
intelligence has.  The former is directed toward citizens, the latter
toward enemies the military has to deal with.

And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to
assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil
US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their
competition/detractors.  Surely you can admit that some people do
things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power
are involved.  After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are
doomed to repeat it."  Don't be so naive to think it can't happen

Of course.  I've never said they didn't.  In fact I've stated that
in government have the same range of motives that people not in
have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will.  But I've also
out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think.  There

are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk

of life.

Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy.

So does deception.  Significantly more so, in fact.

As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people
that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access
to the data on their computers.

Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to
my employer.  If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that
prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer
informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to
your network.  If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you
want to take a look at my property.

Therein lies the rub.  Whose property are the bits on the wire?  Once
you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does
that transmission still belong to you?  I would submit that it does not,

and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and belongings

can no longer be sensibly applied.

Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in
process of transmission?

And as far as I know, there's
no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to
monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my
mobile phone contract.

Really?  To whom does your response to me belong?  What about the email
you send to a friend?  A stranger?  And twitter posts?  Blog comments?
Etc., etc.  Does it really make sense to extend your privacy rights to
those things that you have sent into the public domain?  And how do you
draw the line legally at what the government can look at without a
and what they must get a warrant for when they can't even know what's on

the network without first connecting to it to look?  Should we forbid
to ever connect simply because something they could potentially see is
"private"?  And is it really private?

And if they already have a warrant to monitor all communications of a
known terrorist, what happens when those communications include a US
person?  All they allowed to monitor since they already have a warrant,
even though they don't have one for the US person?

From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost

Ahah!  Now we're on to something.  Here's an idea.  Make it easier
to get that warrant when you need it.  Improve the process, so that
when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days.
Don't remove the requirement altogether.  That's simply inviting

I completely agree.  I also think the definitions need to be much
so that intelligence people understand exactly where the fences are.
I don't think a warrant should be required unless a US person is the
*target* of the monitoring.

Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
obvious, my opinions are my own
and not those of my employer.
WARNING: Check the headers before replying

Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  Although this transmission and
any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
 If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.

Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst

As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions

are my own and not those of my employer.


"It is as useless to argue with those who have

renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson


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


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 ]