[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <122827b90511301322w5a0cc0c4la197ecf5b280fcc3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed Nov 30 21:23:02 2005
From: stan.bubrouski at gmail.com (Stan Bubrouski)
Subject: Clever crooks can foil wiretaps,
security flaw in tap technology
While you make some valid points, lets not escalate this to another
political discussion ;-)
-sb
On 11/30/05, Dude VanWinkle <dudevanwinkle@...il.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Andy Lindeman <alindeman@...il.com> wrote:
> > I think we're talking about legal wiretaps, e.g. a law enforcement
> > agency with a court order. The problem is if you can easily fool the
> > system, the evidence is possibly unreliable and/or tainted. However,
> > even if you can temporarily "fool" the law enforcement agency in
> > question, it's doubtful this would keep you out of trouble for long.
>
> If law enforcement is involved in a wiretap, that means they dont have
> enough evidence to convict you. Even if they do have enough evidence
> to convict you, they have yet to do so, or you wouldn't be on the
> phone. This means they are snooping on innocent civilians by providing
> circumstantial evidence to a judge (or, since the "Provide Appropriate
> Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" act, they may not
> even need a warrant)
>
> Either way, this is a bad tangent to go off on. That was a great study
> done, and shouldn't be trivialized by my ramblings.
>
> Does anyone know of a C-Tone for GPS devices? ;-)
>
> -JP
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists