Acta signed!!!!

[One Brow]

So are you in favor of or opposed to warrantless monitoring of your telephone conversations? This has been in court many times and it has been made pretty clear this requires a warrant of some kind, outside of Patriot Act issues.

I'm in favor of getting a warrant. However, if you put the conversation out in public, you make the warrant unnecessary. There's a reason the DoD has it's own neworks for Secret and Top Secret information.

 

[SaltyDawg]

If you buy a phone service from a company that does that, you are making your conversations public.

Do you have any case law to cite for this? Complete BS. You are absolutely not making your conversations public just because the phone company chooses to send packet data instead of old school voice transmissions. Tell that to Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile (who all have plans to send voice communications over 4G LTE networks, which convert the calls to packet data and send over the internet). You don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Your dislike of my claims does not make them untrue or inaccurate. You have not dispute any issue of fact I have offered, so for all your bluster about my having no idea, you seem to accept my ideas. You just reject the implications. Your cognitive dissonance is not my problem, and I will not change my opinions to respect it.

It's not only my dislike of your claims. It's the fact that you are just making crap up that you don't know anything about. I'm calling you on ytour BS.

Do you have any case law to cite for this?

Absolutely. Here you go:
https://legal.web.aol.com/resources/legislation/ecpa.html

Now, return the favor and support your BS claims. Or you can admit you were wrong, that would be even better.

 

[One Brow]

Do you have any case law to cite for this?

I'm not discussing case law, I'm just observing a fact. When you put your conversaiton on publically available servers, it is in public view. The law may attempt to give a cloak of privacy to it in various situations, but that cloak is artificial.

Tell that to Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile (who all have plans to send voice communications over 4G LTE networks, which convert the calls to packet data and send over the internet).

Because we can rely on them to honestly discuss the results of their policies?

It's not only my dislike of your claims. It's the fact that you are just making crap up that you don't know anything about.

It's easy to prove me wrong. Show how the packets are hidden from public view while they are bouncing around from server to server on a public throughfare.

Absolutely. Here you go:
https://legal.web.aol.com/resources/legislation/ecpa.html

"ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure."

There was nothing on that page about data interception. For all your insults about my knowledge, I'm bright enough to know the difference between going someplace you are not allowed and recording something in place you are allowed to be. It would be nice to see evidence you know the difference.

Now, return the favor and support your BS claims. Or you can admit you were wrong, that would be even better.

As soon as you show me something I said that was wrong, I'll admit it. I've done so before on this board.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Yes, it's going through a public media.

than start sending me copies

 

[DutchJazzer]

Dutch spent some time talking about a specific case with Warner Brothers, but that case clearly involves a tool that was agreed upon between Warner and the website itself rather than some legal right obtained by Warner without the website's consent. As a result it has essentially no bearing on ACTA.

Piracy is a real issue and has been essentially since the internet was born. Dutch is a known and admitted pirate. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why he's really upset about anti-piracy measures.

the warner bross situation is applicable. because now warner bros does not need the approval of hotfile. even with the approval of hotfile they miss used there authority.
just an example of them using their authority to screw with us?

am i a pirate. maybe maybe not. let me tell you this I aint breaking a single cyberlaw within these borders. not 1 single cyberlaw. NOT ONE!

 

[DutchJazzer]

Yes, it's going through a public media.



No. But if you do some digging and pull the emails off the internet, I have no righ to claim you invaded my provacy.



Again, anything you can pull off the internet is something I have no right to claim is an invasion of my privacy.

inn all i'll just assume you are janking my chain.

cus i refuse to believe you have the IQ of a Targ

 

[One Brow]

than start sending me copies

Feel free to go get them. I won't complain.

 

[SaltyDawg]

There was nothing on that page about data interception. For all your insults about my knowledge, I'm bright enough to know the difference between going someplace you are not allowed and recording something in place you are allowed to be. It would be nice to see evidence you know the difference.

Are you being serious here? Here is the very first sentence on that page (emphasis added by me):
"The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. "

Here's the link again:
https://legal.web.aol.com/resources/legislation/ecpa.html

As soon as you show me something I said that was wrong, I'll admit it. I've done so before on this board.

Um, waiting...

 

[DutchJazzer]

one brow do you not consider internet communications not electronic?

 

[sirkickyass]

The ECPA has differing levels of protections for different kinds of electronic data though. There's one level for communications that are in transit and another level for communications that are in residence in a particular digital location. The two of you are conflating these two things although they're treated differently under US law (again, because the laws were largely made and interpreted in the telephone-era).

Not certain you want to be making ECPA-specific arguments based on a little summary like that. I actually have a whole book on the ECPA around here somewhere. Later I may take a crack at decoding it for you.

Anyway, the real issue here from my perspective is whether or not ACTA or similar provisions will somehow override basic concepts like "fair use" under US copyright law. If not, that seems to take all the teeth away from the nightmare scenarios Dutch is convinced is inevitable.

 

[DutchJazzer]

The ECPA has differing levels of protections for different kinds of electronic data though. There's one level for communications that are in transit and another level for communications that are in residence in a particular digital location. The two of you are conflating these two things although they're treated differently under US law (again, because the laws were largely made and interpreted in the telephone-era).

Not certain you want to be making ECPA-specific arguments based on a little summary like that. I actually have a whole book on the ECPA around here somewhere. Later I may take a crack at decoding it for you.

Anyway, the real issue here from my perspective is whether or not ACTA or similar provisions will somehow override basic concepts like "fair use" under US copyright law. If not, that seems to take all the teeth away from the nightmare scenarios Dutch is convinced is inevitable.

"deep packet inspection" and prohibition on debuggen tools is a real nightmare.

so lets say if i call you on the phone it is protected under privacy law, if i come over to your home talk to you it is protected under some privacy law. if we talk in a car it is protected by a privacy law. but if i call you on skype/msn/"insert other more or les secure programs" discussing the same stuff it does not apply under the law of privacy.

this is just common sense. i dont need a laywer to draw the conclusion that i shall have said privacy???

in my understanding not to offend you kicky. but i've been following a lot of court cases concerning technolgy(and the laywers and judges seem clueless sometimes).

 

[sirkickyass]

in my understanding not to offend you kicky. but i've been following a lot of court cases concerning technolgy(and the laywers and judges seem clueless sometimes).

But despite this observation you feel totally comfortable making statements about the law.

Hmmmmm.