IP: RE: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>From: Chris Savage <chris.savage@crblaw.com>
>To: "'farber@cis.upenn.edu'" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>,
>         ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
>Subject: RE: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS
>Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:06:51 -0400
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Dave Farber [mailto:farber@cis.upenn.edu]
> >Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 4:27 PM
> >To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
> >Subject: IP: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS
> >
> >
> >I will let the readers determine whether the actions of many have been
> >trying to undermine  the BofR.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >>From: "Baker, Stewart" <SBaker@steptoe.com>
> >>To: "'farber@cis.upenn.edu'" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
> >>cc: "Albertazzie, Sally" <SAlbertazzie@steptoe.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>[ I wonder if the law they say " U.S.  law enforcement groups are also
> >>hamstrung by laws that allow  cybercriminals to escape detection and
> >>capture." is also called the Bill of Rights djf]
> >>
> >>
> >>That's not fair, Dave.  I don't know any Justice officials who would
> >>criticize the Bill of Rights as hamstringing law enforcement.
> >> More likely this is a reference to the lack of procedures for a
> >>nationwide "trap and trace" order that would allow the government to track
>hackers
> >>from one US host to another without having to get a separate order in a
> >>local court for each host.  It's fair to ask questions about this Justice
> >>proposal, but I haven't heard anyone argue that it violates the Bill of
>Rights.
>
>Big, big picture question here:
>
>On some level if the Internet (writ large) is a form of public place, then
>it should be no big deal for law enforcement to "watch" it, just as law
>enforcement can post officers on as many street corners as it can afford,
>whether in uniform or in mufti.  If everyone understood that their
>activities on the Internet were "public" in the same sense that their
>activities in the park were "public," they could then decide what, if
>anything, to do about it.  Proliferation of strong encryption comes to mind,
>but that would depend on a lot of factors, obviously.
>
>On the other hand, the dominant legal view as I understand it is that the
>individual networks that make up the Internet are not public at all, but
>private, kind of like a country club.  People are allowed in to do what they
>do by virtue of licenses paid for by the users (or others) and subject to
>revocation, etc.  If law enforcement wants to track what goes on in private
>places -- even country clubs -- law enforcement needs warrants.
>
>I'm not at all sure that there is any effective consensus on "public" vs.
>"private" as a model for Internet activity.  So folks with differing
>interests can legitimately reach very, very different conclusions about what
>behavior is appropriate, either for individuals, companies, or government
>agencies.
>
>Chris S.
>
>
>***************************************************************************
>This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or
>privileged information.  If you believe that you have received the
>message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission
>and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
>***************************************************************************