Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:27:10 -0400
From: "J. Oquendo" <sil@...iltrated.net>
To: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: You shady bastards.

Tim wrote:
> This definitely could apply in the case of the ECPA, but could get
> dicey, since "ordinary course of business" is ill-defined and I suspect
> would require some serious legal wrangling to argue.  Does this business
> regularly read everyone's email?
>
> In any case, whether they were legally permitted to monitoring that email
> box or not, you really should work on your debate skills.  Attacking one
> point by changing to another doesn't take the discussion anywhere.  The
> offensive tone your initial emails took on was really unwarranted.
> There's no need to make every thread a flame war.
>
> tim
>
>   
AGAIN... VERBATIM NOT MY *SUGGESTION/NOTION/INFERRENCE*


/ * PLAIN ENGISH VERSION * /
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/107/Hearings/04032001hearing154/Lamb234.htm 

V. Electronic Communications Privacy Act

The Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C.
2510-2522; 2701; was enacted to address potential privacy issues related
to the growing use of computers and other new forms of electronic
communications. It added provisions to the federal criminal code that
extended the prohibition against the unauthorized interception of
communications to specific types of electronic communications, including
e-mail, pagers, cellular telephones, voice mail, remote computing services,
private communication carriers, and computer transmissions. The Act also
identified situations and types of transmissions that would not be 
protected,
most notably an employer's monitoring of employee electronic mail on the
employer's system.

/ * END * /

Do you see or not see the sentence "not be protected most notably an
employer's monitoring... EMPLOYER'S SYSTEM"? Do you not see
the plain English wording "unauthorized interception of". Now take good
note of this from someone who has been to court... Everything is as broad
as broad can be. Its purposefully done this way if you ask me and the
arguments come out AFTER the fact hence new cases being cited and
quoted. So literally the law states "unlawful intercept" and "would not
be protected... employer monitoring" so take these two things literally
assuming it were you in a court of law, you being the employer.

Defense: "Client violated the ECPA act foo"
Plaintiff: "There was NEVER AN INTERCEPTION. The email was DELIVERED to 
his EMPLOYER'S SERVER"

Point blank. Unless you cite another case where some company was
found guilty of "snooping" to argue this, point is moot. And I am not
just talking or inferring anything. I've posted ENOUGH information
to give you a clue about FACTS not inferences.

-- 
====================================================
J. Oquendo
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743
echo infiltrated.net|sed 's/^/sil@/g'
"Wise men talk because they have something to say;
fools, because they have to say something." -- Plato



Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5157 bytes)

_______________________________________________
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