funsec mailing list archives
Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act?
From: Matthew Murphy <mattmurphy () kc rr com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:22:13 -0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 28, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Richard M. Smith wrote:
I personally would hate to stake my future freedom on a grammer interpretation. ;-)
Nor would I, but I also wouldn't want to stake a federal court case alleging ECPA violations on it, either. :-)
Given the oddball nature of the ECPA interpretations which would allow a conviction or finding of liability, I think Mr. Cheung is probably on safe turf, as far as federal law is concerned.
Want to take a crack at the California law next: PENAL CODE SECTION 630-638http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode? section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638 Richard
California Law appears to say nothing about this issue, actually. Section 632, which I thought might apply here, does not apply because it covers communications carried "by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio". As such, it excludes WiFi implicitly. Radio devices such as cell phones and cordless phones are subject to specific prohibitions on interception in the later sections, but WiFi is not mentioned.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iQIVAwUBRjPXJXXzqEAiV8M/AQIFnA//SYHJAT3KH6Be6faWAjaX1iTagX+jFaDd 7lzioRwCh65/IcHtgtYlcoJE+eYkj6c46Ew0OpcOxJFqd1tcCtfzj9af1RHBWHAk n7r79xGTpIdMs1D/to/hFF1o137hIlIsEZRtWcgFD3RWdpY/xjfshQvH9NwSHy19 4rH4vpwJ2YIgoLpuWXT51fEgTHrfvwB8hG99xy5vl/MhvKzj127YpWiUmwvEnJbY 7fZoPSwpsH4rPIQfb0JnLWdXdJzhuQ7H5eXTuM6WZkGt4/hDJ6mosv8dnV15Ko0R Vw/OuO/8mF+lLGryFoSaJQhhZHR7WQlYT/scdh53j7TNlVWjyyFV/An57QwZmhbw s/En9x15f19yDkVkRm3qd2bhuA8YLa6EJLOGqjc/rNNYkpNs+8gKQjw/6rsgktbP 17a2+9VEj5TYi9GcX+WmIoK06s+9G6TUNCJvZArI+B80bdPy0GPWKFCOFQzmHZ/3 p0qjeHe7KkZIyFFZHxP+7cdAMwGagXNG2omfnjyhE/15fB0DpinwTxxW9xDmgfti qLOoDM6GvRg4gj/inwU1kPEvBdpzEPuy+FOHjMBl+9a44fn9DkvDFkLtrLmR0+hG H262dXNhNKIOXtVmqOxpOdg5O8+BwCD1Ku6rfuYQNmgXKE1ceufylckTqvxxWwtF mZU80HcRtGA= =7yLJ -----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.
Current thread:
- Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)