Net Privacy -- Cable vs. Telecom Service 82
doranb writes: "Carl Kaplan has a good article this week in his CyberLaw Journal. It seems U.S. users who access the Internet via cable modems may enjoy greater privacy protections. About halfway through the article he says: 'That's because the laws governing the cable television industry, the Cable Act of 1984 and the related sections of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have privacy protections for cable subscribers that make the telephone wiretap laws seem positively pallid. Take a case where an FBI. agent wants to intercept real-time e-mail generated by a cable-modem user. Under section 551(h) of the Cable Act, the government has to secure a court order based on "clear and convincing evidence" that the target may be involved in a crime. That's a higher standard that the "probable cause"" required for a phone tap.' The question becomes: Should the U.S. 'dumb down' these protections to be equivalent to telecom, or should they beef up telecom's protections to be equal to the cable industry?"
Obscurity by politeness (Score:4)
Maybe I'm almost on my own but doesn't anyone else think that expecting laws and legislation to protect people's privacy is a bit shallow? I don't like people reading my email, etc, but at the same time I think it's silly to expect that simply asking people not to will stop it from happening.
It's not even security by obscurity, it's obscurity by politeness. Even if government agencies can't monitor traffic, what about the rights of ISP's to monitor traffic passing through their system? Since the Internet is an open system, there's also not much guarantee that an ISP won't on-sell information to the government, anyway.
This is why I think Carnivore and various other privacy issues shouldn't be any more than an issue between an ISP and the government. There can be legislation to prevent governments from monitoring communications, but there's no clean way to enforce it. There's also no clean way to stop non-governement entities from intercepting information.
I think the more fundamental issue is government controls on the use and distribution of things like cryptography. Restrictions on this are a major reason why the privacy infrastructure of the net is hopeless right now, which is the reason why people are so concerned about the government monitoring their net-communications.
===
Dumb down (Score:3)
F.B.I., New York Branch
August 5, 2000
Mr. Galeewakitz(remember the beer commercial?),
It has come to our attention that you may be planning on committing a crime in the near future. Furthermore, our sources inform us that you may reveal some information leading to your conviction between the days of November 21, 2000 and November 25, 2000. Please be advised that under the Cable Communications Act of 1984, we are required to give notice of our intention to monitor your electronic communications via Cable Modem on these dates. Should you object to these plans, please contest the issue at your nearest Court of Law on or before October 1, 2000.
Courteously Yours,
Agent Smith,
F.B.I.
Re:One exception... (Score:1)
--
Not just new applications.... New laws (Score:3)
This problem has frequently plaqued the judicial system lately. Intellectual property, for one, is ill-defined. Microsoft can be ordered to release their source code. That's like forcing Coca-Cola to open the vault and bring the secret formula to Pepsi's door. Yet at the same time, source code for an open-source DVD player can't be distrited because it discloses an encryption method. A merger between two telephone providers is prevented, but a merger between AOL and Time Warner isn't. Napster can be ordered to shut down until it's decided if it's within the law. That's prior retraint. It's also saying they are guilty until proven innocent.
As an analogy, I use the Second Ammendment. (I'm not taking a stance on gun control, just using an example of laws taken out of context.) People argue that they have the right to own a gun becuase of the Second Ammendment. Where are the Redcoats and the revolutions in the country-side? The Second Ammendment starts by stating that it exists becuase a millia is necessary....
Too many of our existing laws have been bent out of shape, often in contradictory manners as it suits the court. And it almost always happens at the expense of technology. The solution is not to choose which of the old laws to apply. That leaves too much up for argument. The solution is to make totally new laws specifically designed for the technological age in which we live.
Re:Obscurity by politeness (Score:1)
The judges.. (Score:2)
Clearly, wiretaps of any sort (phone, internet, etc) are a useful tool in the right hands. The trouble is, most of the decisions fall into the same category as Montana's old "Reasonable and Prudent" speed limits -- everyone has a different opinion of what that means.
While I don't want an overly sympathetic judge to grant warrants for anything imaginable, I damn sure don't want a privacy zealot hampering a terrorist investigation!
Since we can no longer trust a single judge to "do the right thing", perhaps we need to require that granting warrants (or sentences, for that matter) be decided by a panel of at least 3 judges -- in the hope that "cooler heads" will prevail.
I, for one, would sure like to see some semblance of common sense return to the legal system as a whole.
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:2)
That wasn't what I meant. I was talking about what they're going to put on a warrant. I mean, if they suspect that you have a gun in your house that was used in a murder, they put exactly what they're looking for on the warrant; they can come take that gun but they can't take anything else, even if they find something else incriminating.
What do they do when monitoring email? They can't say "we're looking for him to say such and such a thing." They can use anything you say; it's not limitable to one piece of information.
They sell your name and phone number (Score:2)
Re:Obscurity by politeness (Score:2)
That's fair enough too and I definitely won't disagree with it. I just think that it's giving a false sense of security to people if they rely on legislation to protect their online privacy. I hope that relying on this type of restriction will only be a short term thing.
For one thing, the word 'unreasonable' is very subjective. Whether or not it's unreasonable for govco to monitor communications could easily depend on the context of their situation. The fact that the Internet is essentially a public forum (even though most normal people think of it as a private forum) doesn't help. A few years into the future, the net could be considered public by enough people that it wouldn't seem unusual in the slightest for anyone to read what you're intending to say in private.
Restrictions on cryptography (IMHO) are a much more fundamental right. Cryptography is what lets two individuals build a metaphorical wall around their conversation so they're no longer speaking in an open courtyard. It's also signalling a clear intention that you're intending to communicate privately, so irrespective of what happens in the future it's more likely to be considered 'unreasonable' for govco to start decrypting people's mail (without a warrent).
So far the major governments of the world have done a tremendous job of restricting the use of cryptgraphy so that it's infeasible for anyone to use it without many overheads. It's unrealistic just to tell someone to "use encryption", because the infrastructure for mass encryption has been inhibited in it's development.
What seems to be happening is that govco is still getting its way. People are more worried about governments monitoring their (essentially public) communications than they are about governments restricting the ability for people to have private conversations. As long as people aren't allowed to create their own privacy, any legislation that prevents listening in public could only be very weak.
===
Re:Not just new applications.... New laws (Score:2)
Yes, you are correct in what you state. I should have been more clear. However, my point still stands in that these fears are antiquated. As a result, the applications of the ammendment must be called into question.
On another note, I think part of the problem here is that someone decided that there's no such thing as an unreasonable electronic search. Probable cause is too vaque and makes it too easy to violate one's rights. Carnivore gets by tapping everyone's lines without a warent because the FBI promises they're only reading e-mails related to persons already under suspicion. If the FBI tapped every phone line in the country, but promised only to listen to those that of persons under suspicion, they'd be shutdown in a heartbeat. That indecisiveness is the problem.
That's obvious (Score:1)
-------
Re:Obscurity by politeness (Score:1)
Sure, they can get it. They will get it. And it will be inadmissible in court. So it is useful, at least to a certain degree, although I'm sure that they would just frame you for something similar if they happened to get inadmissible evidence.
Re:Next Question... (Score:1)
How many people have $1000 spare for electing a President? More to the point, 700-some times $100 does not equal a 95 million dollar war chest.
But a breakdown into ranges would indeed be useful.
--
My name is Sue,
How do you do?
Now you gonna die!
Re:No! (Score:1)
Actually it does matter. A cordless phone transmission doesn't have the same "expectation of privacy" as a cellphone. No court orders are required for a cordless because its considered "public" transmission, just as no court orders are needed to overhear someone on a street corner.
So the question is, do we continue to support a two-tiered privacy system? Affordable "public" vs. the more expensive "private"?
Remember (anyone?) when telephones were partylines? Hasn't there always been a precident for this?
I dunno (Score:3)
Plain and simple, I have a little more peace of mind and a little more security with my connections because I run a firewall. I get randomly port scanned about 10 times a day, pinged hard and a number of other things about once a week. I know this is common with cable modems, as opposed to dial up connections, however I have better security simply because I installed a firewall, not because my provider gives me any additional level of confidence.
A related issue (Score:3)
My question is, if you run your own version of sendmail, you likely don't interact with a 'third party' regarding the sending of your email -- your server will contact the receiving server directly to send the mail. Under these circumstances, it seems like running your own server gives you additional grounds to argue that your communications really deserve greater protection than phone conversations. (And you're using PGP anyway, aren't you? :-)
The usual disclaimer applies -- I am not a lawyer, etc, etc.
So where's the line? (Score:1)
Re:One exception... (Score:2)
It works great
Re:I dunno (Score:1)
A firewall is only going to keep people from entering your machines. It won't keep people (such as your next-door neighbor, who may or may not work for the Feds) from sniffing what goes by on the connection between the cable system's nearest node, and your firewall.
Sure, your machines are secure, but your communications with the rest of the world are not.
--
Re:The Obvious Answer is (Score:2)
Honestly I'd be a little pissed if I was actually sending anything that anyone cared about. The typoes of transactions I do ar not very sexy, mainly code reviews and design documents for some offshore development we do. I suppose if it wer James Bond type stuff or black hatesque I'd care, but as it is now, it really doesn't bother me, if it's done via vable modem, IPS or VPN.
Re:One exception... (Score:1)
Its a problem because you don't trust your neighbors. Heck, if you are like most Americans, you probably don't even know your neighbors. If you live in the suburbs, everybody has a house, a car, a yard. Everybody commutes to work. There is no corner grocery store. You don't get together to on a daily basis. You are more likely to invite friends or coworkers who live miles away over to dinner.
This is in sharp contrast to dorm life it college where everybody on the floor knew each other. We would have cried bloody murder if we had not been able to share files by turning on sharing over our network. Local sharing is so much more efficient than going through services like Napste
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:2)
The question he raised about getting a warrant interested me, however. With a regular search and seizure, as he noted, you must specify what you're looking for. How can you specify what you're looking for with a wiretap or interception of email? Information isn't an item you can just single out and take.
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:2)
Re:One exception... [OT] (Score:1)
Hrm. (Score:2)
Re:They sell your name and phone number (Score:1)
Bottom line is, I don't like people selling my name and address, either, but I'm not nearly as worried about telcos doing it as I am about companies that deal with financial information.
Actually, I'd hope for something higher than that (Score:1)
The court cases all have intriguing names like US Government vs. 1981 Cadillac El Dorado or US Government vs. $83,000 cash. Even if the charges are dropped against the property owners (or even if the property owners weren't involved in the alleged crime), the government keeps the loot.
Re:Personally (Score:1)
For instance, there were three recent interesting cases. The 1st involved someone that ran away after Five-Oh showed up in a high crime area. The cops got very reasonably suspicious, ran him down, and then found that he had a gun. I won't say what the Supreme Court ruled, but it was a 5-4 decision. If you have a clue about the make-up of the court, then you can figure out what side won.
The second case involved law enforcement personnel incidentally feeling a bus passenger's luggage. They get suspicious and look at the contents. This was rejected. Finally, the court ruled that one cannot search somebody based on an anonymous tip.
Right now, the Supreme Court is in a precarious balance. The next President will probably have the opportunity to sway the balance one way or the other.
Finally, I realize how I can be a karma whore. I'm not saying that you are, just that the moderation for this story clearly indicate the method. The Feds are evil, Give me my privacy no matter what the consequences are, did I say that the Feds are evil. Of course, many of you already now this.
Govt. Will Lower Cable Privacy. Duh. (Score:3)
The govt. will argue that this will not do, especially when the country is being threatened by all sorts of mean and nasty people (mad hackers, Chinese nuclear physicists, etc.). I guess one of the fall-outs of the fall of the eastern bloc, was that western governments need new "threats" to justify spending billions on military/spying technology. They are therefore claiming that in order to protect us all, they have to develop this technology whereby they will be able to listen to everything we say (and in fact who knows that they aren't doing so already -- we are only discussing laws here, not what they really get up to).
The reason they have let more rigourous cable privacy laws through so far, is that up until now, cable modems weren't on the radar of the types who run these agencies. Now it appears that we will all be using cable modems to talk with each other, they sure as hell will try and listen to it, whether it's legal or not.
A discussion of some of the legal implications of this is in the NY Times "Cyber Law Journal" (free reg. blah blah blah), here [nytimes.com]. According to this article, the govt. will make a play to apply telephone privacy standards to e-mail (e-mail standards are even lower), make it look as if they are increasing privacy, and then apply the whole nine yards to cable, thereby bringing a whole lot more data into their net.
Given what might or not be construed as legal activity in the near future -- listening to mp3s, wearing copyleft t-shirts, etc. -- it does not look good.
fff
Carnivore makes all access equal (Score:2)
If they have the ability to monitor your cable company's backbone provider and skim through all e-mail to find yours in particular, - they've bypassed the cable companies infrastructure entirely and the requirements that go along with it.
Option number three (Score:1)
Pray that the government does nothing for fear that they will screw it all up anyway.
There's nothing polite about it (Score:2)
Read stories by Philidelphia RNC protesters of police abuse in jails and on the streets.
From Independent Media Center [indymedia.org], read: Released Dallas activist recounts jail abuses [phillyimc.org] [...] From Z Magazine Online [zmag.org], read: Report from Philadelphia [zmag.org] From Salon Magazine [salon.com], read: Taking it from the streets [salon.com]
And don't forget Abner Luima [yahoo.com], the recent LA/Rampart, CA police terrorists [yahoo.com], and the NY Central Park attacks [yahoo.com] while police stood by and watched....
When your government invades your privacy, colludes with individual private corporations to bend legislation to their favor, enacts insane intelectual property laws to favor only the elite, repeals tax laws which only the rich and elite can utilize, disarms the population, and begins unconstitutionally using brute force on citizens, you can be sure something serious is fucked up. Are you ready for American refugees?
Welcome to fascism, for real.
Re:There's nothing polite about it (Score:1)
Re:Where tap is connected (Score:1)
Furthermore an email intercepted outside the cable network (transmitted by an in network subscriber). It could be argued that it is possible that the contents of the email are altered (email is not secure through all nodes) and therefore inadmissible.
-Not an insult simply devils advocate
No! (Score:2)
That's because it's ridiculous to make privacy laws based on the medium. If I send an e-mail over copper wire, over fiber, over the airwaves, whatever, I still just sent an e-mail. And that should have the same privacy protections, (even though sending it UNENCRYPTED over the airwaves is phenomenally stupid as well...) because I did the same thing. I just sent an e-mail.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
hello!!? (Score:5)
What kind of question is that?
Should the government take ALL your money or just half
Should you ask your parents before you buy a new TV?
Should I make sure it's ok with my dog before I got to the movies?
Should I pour hot grits down my pants?
Obviously the group that should violate privacy less than any other is the damn gobernment.... THEY WORK FOR US!!! I hate how you always have to remind people that...
Re:Look at da number! (Score:1)
Next Question... (Score:1)
A: Beef up.
Next question...
One exception... (Score:1)
Personally (Score:5)
Even this has been taken out of context; cops can search for 'evidence'.
The original point of requiring a warrant was that the police (or whoever) would have to say 'Look, we firmly believe based on XX and XX ansd XX that Mr. So-and-so has the following items in his house. If we had these items, we could solve the crime; so the judge would order that they had permission to enter his home and search for and take away these items. Why does a judge need to do this? BEcause.. oroginall, and ideally, *NOBODY* has the right to take anything taht is yours. Nobody. THat's what a warrant is for.
Nowadays, i'ts abused beyond belief.
Quick response (Score:1)
Beef up telecom.
People's privacy is on the line...
Up the protection of telecom (Score:2)
We should increase the protections against govermental and business intrusions.
In the United States, we only have the freedoms that we fight for. We have surrendered them to business and the government slowly over time. We must stop.
Is this any better? (Score:1)
Re:Up the protection of telecom (Score:2)
They sell your demographic and pattern information but nothing else. Assuming they scan and sell propriatary information that you send across their networks is silly.
The Echelon crowd may, but the carriers don't. Anything remotely close to this would constitiute a wiretap and the carriers don't need the hassles. Your e-mail to your aisian hooker sweetie is just not worth the huge fines they would get slapped with if they got tagged.
New FBI P.R. Challenge (Score:1)
Re:One exception... (Score:1)
Can't have it both ways (Score:4)
However your one statement:
I think that interception of information, in the form of telephone wiretaps, digital gathering of private email, etc... should be treated exactly like property seizure, no matter what the medium.
Struck me as ironic. I'll bet half the slashdot crowd is cheering along shouting "Hell Yeah!", and if you look at the whole Napster mess, there is a strange similarity. Can't have it both ways.
Re:I dunno (Score:2)
Steven E. Ehrbar
Telephony? (Score:2)
As a side note, Congress will eventually begin to explore taxing telephony; the telecos will lobby them to death.
Re:One exception... (Score:1)
Re:I dunno (Score:2)
The point was that even with IPSec, 128 encryption, VPN Tunneling etc, you're still fair game. The only real recouse is to lock down as tight as you can and change protocols, and IP's regularly. Wheather it's to keep the feds or the black hats from looking at your data.
Re:Not just new applications.... New laws (Score:2)
The second amendment does state: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
However, if you check into the history of this, and other Bill of Rights amendments, you will find that they were written more to defend the states, and their citizens, from the new Federal Government than to defend them against England, or any other external threat---the founders were rather paranoid about the potential dangers of governments (after all, they had seen first hand what their former government had done).
To tie this back to the topic on hand. This same paranoia is the reason for the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizure (which does use the "upon probable cause" criteria---though it goes on to state that the warrant must be "supported by oath or affirmation" [not that that means much anymore], and that the warrant must "particularly [describe] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized").
Re:Dumb down (Score:1)
Why is it that every time we have a discussion on privacy, people trot out this tired old assumption that this is just about pornography? It isn't. What about when they use this stuff to frame people for crimes? (And if you think the government wouldn't do that, you're nuts.) What about when they start cracking down on religious or political viewpoints they don't like? (Which isn't to say that they aren't already doing this.)
Re:Not just new applications.... New laws (Score:1)
If you are not afraid of the government infringeing upon your rights then why are you so concerned about the FBI tapping your e-mail but promicing not to read it without a warrant. The second amendment was put in place as a last resort protection for our rights. If all else fails the second amendment makes revolution possible. I'm not saying we are anywhere near that point yet. But the very fact that revolution is possiable is incentive for the government not to necessitate one.
Re:Obscurity by politeness (Score:2)
I can see where you're coming from, I'm just not sure how it might hold up against good lawyers. (Although I'm not a lawyer myself.)
If a cable modem user posts a message to a public forum, can it be intercepted and used against that person? I could be missing something but personally I think it could. It's not as if anyone can't see it anyway.
So if a cable modem user posts a message that travels through a public arena (AKA the Internet), can it be intercepted and used against that person? Morally I'd say no, but technically since there's no attempt to indicate that it's not public because the Internet is a public and uncontrolled place.
How is a cable user routing something through the Internet any different from a cable user routing something through a public forum?
===
Re:Is this a trick question??? (Score:1)
Re:Next Question... (Score:1)
This is misleading in the extreme. If you read the opensecrets page deeper, you'll find how they define "individuals".
INDIVIDUALS: All contributions from individuals, both large and small.
Is a $1000 contribution considered to be large?
Re:The Obvious Answer is (Score:1)
"They made a law to take away all the guns, but I didn't say anything, because I didn't own a gun..."
My Web Page: Why You Should Use Encryption (Score:2)
Re:hello!!? (Score:1)
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:1)
Yes, you can have it both ways: You can say anoyone can copy you IP, execpt law enforcment officials need a warrent to "use an invasive procedure like walking into your house or tapping your line. That sounds pretty good to me. It's not about what information law enforcment has, it's about how they get it. It would also be illegal to hack your friends system to read his email, but once your friend gave you a copy of a product he was working on then you could publish that product with being sued.
"Unreasonable searches" refers to the act of obtaning the information. IP laws only refer to the possion of the information.
BTW> I'm pretty shure you can not sue the gov. for possion of copyrighted material that they are usng to investigate a crim, no matter how they obtain the information.
And what about TLS? (Score:1)
Further... If you run your own Sendmail daemon, and it happens to be v8.11.0, and has TLS configured. Can they even scan your headers?
Temkin
Re:Next Question... (Score:2)
And what will happen? Dumb down!
There seems to be a concerted move in most Western countries to use the development of a new medium to extend state and corporate power, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Especially not when one candidate for the US presidency has 95% percent of his running fund bought by 762 people, and his opponent has gone on the record as stating that government should filter information in case people make "bad decisions" without the help of government.
I think you'll find that people with these worldviews regard the freedoms afforded traditional media a terrible mistake that can be rectified with each successive generation of new media.
(ObOffTopic Prize: Guess which US presidential candidate is which!)
--
My name is Sue,
How do you do?
Now you gonna die!
Is this a trick question??? (Score:2)
Such spanning powers should only be enacted in times of war. (And I don't mean the war on drugs.) Thats the only time national security is really so threatened.
Just my thoughts.
f*** the man, use crypto (Score:1)
they should be able to protect you as well (Score:1)
It's a very delicate balance...
that's about all I can say.
Re:Neither : rewrite them! (Score:2)
Re:Roman Trolls 2:16 (Score:1)
-ttm
Telecom rights should be upgraded (Score:1)
Re: @Home blocks ports 137-139 (Score:1)
Well, @Home has restrictions on that for me - they block all incoming traffic to ports 137-139, effectively blocking SMB/NMB traffic.
And, if you use secure passwords, thing should be fine even on a cable network - DOCSIS prevents other people sniffing stuff for you.
Carnivore: Spam email will define your character. (Score:2)
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that militias are obsolete today. To take a modern example, the Black Panthers could be perceived as a militia formed to ensure that people's rights (namely the right not to get the bejesus beat out of oneself by the pigs) were protected. As an even more modern example, the Y2K scare caused a surge in gun purchases among Americans; a great many Americans were sufficiently frightened of the possibility of chaos and the inability of their government to protect them in the event of such chaos to appreciate their Second Amendment rights. I suspect the Second Amendment/gun control issue isn't as clean an analogy as you want for this discussion.
For practical purposes the FBI covets the ability to monitor all communications to and from criminal suspects. Without Carnivore it is difficult for them to guarantee that they can do this monitoring on electronic communications with any measure of completeness. While I understand their wanting to have this capability, it doesn't mean that I accept that they should have it.
Frankly, after observing firsthand an FBI criminal investigation, I don't trust the FBI with the information they could divine about me with Carnivore, and I think that few would if they gave the matter much consideration. If I were to fall under investigation for some reason, and as part of a criminal investigation they were to scan the traffic to one of my throwaway email accounts (claudiusclaudius@yahoo.com, e.g.), then I will be profiled as a goatpr0n lover and pyramid-scheme participant based on the spam I get there. Since FBI investigative procedure as often as not involves finding a suspect as fast as possible by fitting candidates to a criminal "profile" and then digging up all the dirt they can on the suspect to (hopefully) tie him or her to the crime, I am uncomfortable with their assurances that Carnivore will not be abused. Even if not abused, I don't want the spam sent my way to affect their perception of me, and I certainly don't want my grandmother to read about my alleged goatpr0n fixation in the New York Times. Recall how Richard Jewel was pilloried in the press for his love of pr0n because law enforcement leaked their having found a skin mag in his apartment.
Re:pour hot grits now (Score:1)
So you say I make no sense and yet you reiterate the same damn thing I was saying in a much less interesting way... good job... your the man!
Re:Where tap is connected (Score:1)
Re:Is this any better? (Score:1)
Re:Neither : rewrite them! (Score:1)
Re:Not just new applications.... New laws (Score:1)
Look at campaign finance reform. This is an area that has screamed out for true reform over the past three decades, yet even those congress critters who speak out vociferously in favor of reform rarely go ahead and present a bill detailing their concepts. These people are so afraid of not being reelected that true sweeping change has become extinct in their halls.
I believe that the only way real change will come is through some form of national initiative system where voters can put forth their own bills and then, at some point, vote on them directly. They would still be subject to review for form by the government, and then will be subject to upholding or overturning by the court system in terms of their constitutionality, but I think this is the only shot we have left in the current political climate.
Of course, for this to happen we have to get past problem number one (Congress critters) in order to take the first step towards this kind of change toward "real" democracy. How likely do you think THAT is?
How about Cable Telecom? (Score:1)
ZoneAlarm - The choice of, well me. (Score:1)
Should happen vs. will happen (Score:1)
What should happen? They should beef up telecom's protections to be equal to the cable industry.
What will happen? They will 'dumb down' these protections to be equivalent to telecom.
Hasn't anyone been paying attention? In a few months, privacy won't be the Topic of the Moment and the government will continue its conquest of your personal space.
pour hot grits now (Score:1)
Your post makes no sense. HELLO?!
Clear and Convincing v Probable Cause (Score:3)
Neither : rewrite them! (Score:2)
Instead of using "medium" (i.e. cable, telco blah blah) centric laws, they should just admit that existing laws are just not good enough and sit down to rewrite a new "information-use law" that apply to "information", and not the medium that carry them.