Home page logo
/

interesting-people logo Interesting People mailing list archives

IP: RE: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:09:10 -0400



From: Chris Savage <chris.savage () crblaw com>
To: "'farber () cis upenn edu'" <farber () cis upenn edu>,
        ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
Subject: RE: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:06:51 -0400
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Farber [mailto:farber () cis upenn edu]
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 4:27 PM
To: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
Subject: IP: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS


I will let the readers determine whether the actions of many have been
trying to undermine  the BofR.

Dave

From: "Baker, Stewart" <SBaker () steptoe com>
To: "'farber () cis upenn edu'" <farber () cis upenn edu>
cc: "Albertazzie, Sally" <SAlbertazzie () steptoe com>


[ I wonder if the law they say " U.S.  law enforcement groups are also
hamstrung by laws that allow  cybercriminals to escape detection and
capture." is also called the Bill of Rights djf]


That's not fair, Dave.  I don't know any Justice officials who would
criticize the Bill of Rights as hamstringing law enforcement.
More likely this is a reference to the lack of procedures for a
nationwide "trap and trace" order that would allow the government to track
hackers
from one US host to another without having to get a separate order in a
local court for each host.  It's fair to ask questions about this Justice
proposal, but I haven't heard anyone argue that it violates the Bill of
Rights.

Big, big picture question here:

On some level if the Internet (writ large) is a form of public place, then
it should be no big deal for law enforcement to "watch" it, just as law
enforcement can post officers on as many street corners as it can afford,
whether in uniform or in mufti.  If everyone understood that their
activities on the Internet were "public" in the same sense that their
activities in the park were "public," they could then decide what, if
anything, to do about it.  Proliferation of strong encryption comes to mind,
but that would depend on a lot of factors, obviously.

On the other hand, the dominant legal view as I understand it is that the
individual networks that make up the Internet are not public at all, but
private, kind of like a country club.  People are allowed in to do what they
do by virtue of licenses paid for by the users (or others) and subject to
revocation, etc.  If law enforcement wants to track what goes on in private
places -- even country clubs -- law enforcement needs warrants.

I'm not at all sure that there is any effective consensus on "public" vs.
"private" as a model for Internet activity.  So folks with differing
interests can legitimately reach very, very different conclusions about what
behavior is appropriate, either for individuals, companies, or government
agencies.

Chris S.


***************************************************************************
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or
privileged information.  If you believe that you have received the
message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission
and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
***************************************************************************


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
  • IP: RE: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS Dave Farber (May 22)
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]