full-disclosure - Re: You shady bastards.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:40:36 -0400
From: Tim <tim-security@...tinelchicken.org>
To: "J\. Oquendo" <sil@...iltrated.net>
Cc: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: You shady bastards.

> Spare me and the list legalities. One it is slightly offtopic then again 
> this is fd so I retract.
> 
> That entire argument and any thread arising from what is legal and what 
> is not is likelier
> to be answered, dissected, studied on a legal forum.

I agree that the subscribers to FD are not the best crowd to discuss
legal issues with.  This will be my last post on the matter.

> Laws are not about what could or should. They're about what's written.

Exactly.  That and how the courts interpret them.

> In this case, he sent
> an email to someone's former workplace. The worker was not there, the 
> employer obviously
> read the email. So the questions to ask should be 1) HD didn't give 
> consent, did/does the
> employer have something written to their employees which states the 
> monitoring of email.
> If they do, case closed there is the one party federal consent.

As mentioned multiple times by multiple posters, but apparently eluded
your reading, the recipient's consent:

 A) May have never been given
 B) May have expired with the employment contracts
 C) May not apply at all if the monitoring party was not given
    authorization by the company

> Secondly, did HD specify in his email any legalities of unauthorized 
> reading. No.

These laws don't require senders or recipients to opt out of monitoring.
PERIOD.

> Thirdly, you need to realize what you've stated and your 
> misinterpretation of the law.
> ECPA protects against INTERCEPTION. No interception occurred here, the mail
> was delivered to a recipient.

FALSE.  ECPA applies to stored communication after delivery Wiretap act
applies to communication in transit and therefore interception.  Maybe
you should review the overturned ruling on United States v. Councilman
again.

> "Wise men talk because they have something to say;
> fools, because they have to say something." -- Plato

Maybe you should follow the advice of your own sig quote.

tim

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/