|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 116 responses total. |
scg
|
|
response 25 of 116:
| 
Sep 17 01:40 UTC 2003 |
Speaking in the general case, what would usually happen is some law
enforcement person would call (or in a couple memorable cases show up) asking
for information. To my knowledge there have never been court orders involved.
They would generally get sent to STeve Andre, who would give them public
information from the wtmp, newuser information if publicily visible, and so
on. I don't remember ever seeing the contents of a mailbox or private files
handed over, but this may also have happened. I'm not sure.
It turns out giving out even publicly visible information to law enforcement
was illegal pre-Patriot act. I'm not sure waht the current status of it is.
It was legal to sell your subscriber information, or post it on the web,
because that wasn't regulated, but it was illegal to give that information
to law enforcement without court orders. Nobody on the Grex staff was aware
of the rather counter-intuitive legal situation when this became common
practice, but I don't think the practice changed after this was pointed out.
I'm not sure how this sort of situation is handled now, since I'm no longer
very involved with staff stuff. I would guess it's rarer, because Grex is
a lot harder to find. While Grex used to list an an address where it was
possible to show up and find computers and occasionally people (or at least
scared landlords who would direct law enforcement to people), and used to list
a phone number that got answered, Grex's current whois data points to a PO
box, and my old home phone number that was disconnected more than three years
ago. Given that law enforcement people in active investigations generally
lack the patience to send e-mail and wait for a reply, my guess is that they
probably go to Grex's ISP, which probably has a lawyer who insists on the
proper documentation or court orders before identifying customers. My
experience dealing with this sort of thing in a professional capacity a few
years ago was that asking for legally required procedures to be followed was
almost always sufficient to get the law enforcement people to go away and not
come back.
Really, the above situation in which Grex was giving more information than
was legally permissible to law enforcement is why a lawyer who knows this sort
of law really needs to be involved in setting the policy, and reviewing any
requests that come in to make sure the policy is followed and what Grex does
remains legal. If after consulting with such a lawyer, the only legal policy
to follow seems too burdensome or otherwise unacceptable for Grex to follow
it (either because it requires us to give out too much information, or if
consistent with past Grex practice we're not comfortable withholding
information to the degree required), that should be discussed. But unless
anybody here really understands the current law and can explain it, any
discussion of refusing to follow it is premature.
|
janc
|
|
response 26 of 116:
|
Sep 17 02:28 UTC 2003 |
There haven't been any recent contacts from law inforcement. Steve's memory
of the less recent ones seems to be clearer than mine.
|
asddsa
|
|
response 27 of 116:
|
Sep 17 03:22 UTC 2003 |
Clearly, it's much clearer.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 28 of 116:
|
Sep 17 03:40 UTC 2003 |
Of course, if the LEAs involved were competent, they would be sending their
computer forensics people to grex, whereupon grex could say "grex is UNIX",
and the computer forensics people should be able to take it from there.
I.e. know where the public files are on a UNIX system etc.
|
other
|
|
response 29 of 116:
|
Sep 17 04:06 UTC 2003 |
I find it hard to believe that it was illegal to provide without a court
order to law enforcement in particular any information which anyone at
all, including law enforcement personnel, could have had access to
without even either asking or resorting to devious means. Can you
substantiate that?
|
scg
|
|
response 30 of 116:
|
Sep 17 05:01 UTC 2003 |
My information came from a presentation by Mark Eckenwiler from the US
Department of Justice, at the October, 2000, North American Network Operators
Group meeting in Washington, DC.
The powerpoint slides from the talk are online here:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0010/justice.html
The section that's relevant to this argument starts here:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0010/ppt/justice/sld026.htm
and goes into more detail if you look at the next few slides.
But as I said, this was both the Clinton Administration Justice Department,
and pre-Patriot Act. I'm guessing the Bush Administration Justice Department
would have had a different view of things, and the Patriot Act probably
changed the rules. What the rules are now I don't know.
|
other
|
|
response 31 of 116:
|
Sep 17 05:14 UTC 2003 |
Either there is a flaw in the interpretation of this law, or the law
itself is so fundamentally flawed as to be laughable.
|
scg
|
|
response 32 of 116:
|
Sep 17 06:06 UTC 2003 |
I haven't read this, but I've heard rumors of its existence, and just found
it via a Google search. It looks relevant:
Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal
Investigations
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
July 2002
http://www.cybercrime.gov/s&smanual2002.htm
|
mary
|
|
response 33 of 116:
|
Sep 17 10:35 UTC 2003 |
Grex doesn't have the resources to have an attorney on
our case for all concerns or questions. I'd like it
to be otherwise, but we're pretty poor. What I do
think we can do is know of someone to contact, ahead
of time, in the event something comes up that has
us really worried. I think doing that much is a
really good idea.
|
dpc
|
|
response 34 of 116:
|
Sep 18 20:01 UTC 2003 |
The part of the USA Patriot Act that people are discussing
is section 215 of that act, which adds a new section 501 to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The amended
version is 50 United States Code section 1861.
Basically, section 501 says that an FBI agent may make an
application for an order requiring any business to produce
"any tangible things" to a special, secret court. The
court is not allowed to deny the application for an order
if the form is correct. (No, I'm not making this stuff up!)
Then it goes on to say:
"No person shall disclose to any other person (other than
those persons necessary to produce the tangible things
under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."
|
mary
|
|
response 35 of 116:
|
Sep 18 20:31 UTC 2003 |
Not even our attorney?
|
other
|
|
response 36 of 116:
|
Sep 18 20:33 UTC 2003 |
So, David, in your opinion, that section would absolutely preclude the
consultation of an attorney by anyone receiving such a request?
(Mary slipped in)
If that is so, then I would personally volunteer to violate that law and
pursue it as a test case should the issue come up. That is completely
beyond the pale.
|
cross
|
|
response 37 of 116:
|
Sep 18 23:23 UTC 2003 |
There seemed to be some confusion earlier about *when* an attorney
could be consulted. It seems to me that consulting an attorny before
any request was made for anything is perfectly legal.
|
other
|
|
response 38 of 116:
|
Sep 19 00:48 UTC 2003 |
Yes, but the point here is that, if I'm reading Dave's coment correctly,
this law prohibits anyone from consulting even their own attorney about
the proper response to a specific request, at ANY TIME, EVER, after the
request is made.
|
cross
|
|
response 39 of 116:
|
Sep 19 18:29 UTC 2003 |
Yes, that was my understanding, as well.
|
other
|
|
response 40 of 116:
|
Sep 20 00:04 UTC 2003 |
Which makes it ever more essential tat we consult an attorney IMMEDIATELY
upon receipt of such a request, while waiting for the source of the
request to provide proof that they are indeed legitimately entitled to
make it (in the interests of National Security, of course).
|
scg
|
|
response 41 of 116:
|
Sep 20 01:13 UTC 2003 |
From what I've been hearing, the FBI at this point tends to show up with their
credentials and their court orders, and sits there waiting for you to deliver
what they're asking for. But I'd wait for Dave's answer before jumping to
conclusions about whether you can call your attorney. While I could be wrong,
I'd expect that conversation to be protected by prviledge and thus be ok.
|
dpc
|
|
response 42 of 116:
|
Sep 22 13:22 UTC 2003 |
There are no court decisions interpreting this language.
From the plain reading of this provision, there is no exception
for consulting an attorney. Congress *could* have included
such an exception, since it felt free to include the "other
than those persons necessary" exception. But it didn't do so.
Now you see why libraries and other businesses have been jumping
up and down about this bizarre part of the Patriot Act.
|
other
|
|
response 43 of 116:
|
Sep 22 23:22 UTC 2003 |
As well they should be.
|
mdw
|
|
response 44 of 116:
|
Sep 23 09:04 UTC 2003 |
It's quite possible parts of the patriot act wouldn't survive a good
constitutional challenge -- and it's also quite likely the government is
going to avoid doing anything that would risk such a challenge. Also,
parts of the act have time limits, and all this is likely to change in
due course anyways; parts of the government are already gearing up to
try to push through what they strenuously deny is "Patriot II",
meanwhile other parts are getting cold feet about what they passed in
the heat of the moment. As a practical matter, I'm not at all convinced
it's worth worrying too hard about this -- we all know the government
isn't supposed to just toss people in jail indefinitely without due
process of law, and yet this already happens: if the government decides
to show up with steel toed thugs, there ain't nuthing we can decide here
that amounts to a hill 'o beans.
The best we can do is continue to do what we have always done with grex,
which has its genesis in the coffee houses of the 1790's even as our
constitution was originally being drafted -- and that is not to talk
about what we ought to do in response to our government, but to talk
about what our government is, is not, ought, or ought not do, why, and
why not. Those I submit are far harder questions than what do do in
response to a lawyer or a thug -- by the time that happens, the time for
policy making has long since passed.
[ Canada, incidently, is no citadel of freedom compared to the US. They
have a deserved reputation for politeness, and rumour has it Canadian
politics are far more liberal; but perhaps the former is in part due to
the far more fragile constitutional basis of Canadian freedoms. It's a
lot easier to respect a fragile glass vase than an iron pot. The latter
may be due to the comparitive absence of the puritan and the cavalier in
Canadian pioneers. ]
|
gull
|
|
response 45 of 116:
|
Sep 23 13:30 UTC 2003 |
#44 brings up a good point. Under no circumstances would I want to see
anyone going to jail for the sake of Grex.
|
other
|
|
response 46 of 116:
|
Sep 23 18:35 UTC 2003 |
The point is, it wouldn't be for the sake of Grex. Grex would be
incidental to the matter. The point would be to initiate a challenge
which would overturn a law which has a serious potential chilling effect
as long as it stands.
|
twenex
|
|
response 47 of 116:
|
Sep 24 22:55 UTC 2003 |
Marcus - perhaps in #44, s/cavalier/roundhead/ ? the cavaliers were the
supporters of non-puritan protestantism,and of themonarchy, whilst the
roundheads (so called because many of them wore bowlcuts, apparently) were
the ones who chopped off the King's (Charles I's) head, and established the
English republic (Commonwealth and, later, Protectorate).
|
i
|
|
response 48 of 116:
|
Sep 25 00:39 UTC 2003 |
Re: #46
True, but you still need at least one grex staffer willing to reduce
his/her quality of life to "camp X-ray" level for an unknown number
of years (while the legal wheels slowly & fitfully grind) for the
eventual greater good...hopefully. Perhaps i just haven't noticed
the staffers rushing to volunteer for this.
|
jep
|
|
response 49 of 116:
|
Sep 25 15:55 UTC 2003 |
I hope we won't be giving the ACLU Grex's name ad resources to use for
their political lawsuits again. A lot of Grexers support the ACLU.
That's fine, they all know how to contact the ACLU. Some of us do
not. We should be able to support Grex even so.
|