RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act?

["Richard M. Smith" <rms () computerbytesman com>]

I personally would hate to stake my future freedom on a grammer
interpretation. ;-)

Want to take a crack at the California law next:

   PENAL CODE SECTION 630-638 
 
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&;
file=630-638
 
Richard   

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Murphy [mailto:mattmurphy531 () gmail com] On Behalf Of Matthew
Murphy
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:08 PM
To: Richard M. Smith
Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: Re: [funsec] Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of
the Electronics Communications Privacy Act?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Apr 28, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Richard M. Smith wrote:

> Matt,
>
> What about (16)(F) then:
>
>    (16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with
>    respect  to  a  radio communication, that such  communication  is
>    not-- (F) an electronic communication

The law reads:

...the communication is a two-way voice communication  by radio;  *or*

           (F) an electronic communication;

The notation is confusing, but I read it as:

((not (A) and not (B) and not (C) and not (D) and not (E)) or not (F))

There are several potential interpretations here, and only one seems
reasonable:

1. ECPA states that any communication which is *not* any of the six classes
defined in (16) is "readily accessible to the public".
Under this interpretation, telephone calls, long held to be protected
communication, would be made subject to warrantless interception by the
general public post-ECPA, as they are not encrypted or scrambled.

2. ECPA states that any communication which is *not* *all* of the six
classes defined in (16) is "readily accessible to the public."
This interpretation would be in error, because it would functionally  
ask the presiding judge to disregard the word 'or' before (16)(F).   
What's more, (16), interpreted in this manner, would exclude *all electronic
communications* from interception, which would make the use of radio
scanners by the public to pick up police/fire/medical traffic illegal, thus
banning the media from following reports of e.g., traffic accidents.

3. ECPA states that any of the communication types listed in (16)(A)-
(16)(E) are subject to interception *if* they are electronic in nature
(hence the 'or').
This would make more sense.  If you interpret (16)(F) as blocking
surveillance of electronic communications, the preceding sections don't make
much sense.  If the law were interpreted differently, my oral and written
communications would have to be encrypted,  
transmitted using non-public modulation techniques (yodeling?   
hieroglyphic substitution?), carried on a subcarrier (here pidgey, pidgey,
pidgey...), carried by a common carrier (mail might meet this), or
transmitted over a frequency allocated by the FCC for broadcast purposes
(tin cans on street corners excluded, sorry).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
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=CqFk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.