[IP] Legally thwarting FBI surveillance of libraries and ISPs
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 26, 2005 12:14:10 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Legally thwarting FBI surveillance of
libraries and ISPs
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Note: This item comes from reader Steve Schear. DLH]
From: Steve Schear <s.schear@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 26, 2005 8:28:22 AM PDT
To: dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Legally thwarting FBI surveillance of libraries and ISPs
I'm one of those that believes that agrees with Louis Brandice's
dissenting opinion about the constitutionality of wiretaps. That
they violate the privacy of those parties who call or are called by
the party being wiretapped.
I have written on this in 2002/2003. There seem to be at least two
legal ways to both obey court orders and also allow the monitored
parties a way to learn of the activity.
1 - The basic notion is for the University/ISP/library to allow all
its premises to be bugged. Every room (except maybe the restroom)
by its clients (or their proxies). All communication could be
monitored and the ISP would have no control. My understanding of
court orders is that they must be served on the ISP at its business
address. Once the order is opened or discussed by the designated
employee who receives the data all its clients would know in short
order. The employees and management will not have been responsible
because they have not taken any affirmative actions to allow the
information to escape their custody. They will have protected the
info with the same diligence they show their own data. ;-)
2 - Alternatively, the organization implements a policy of replying
positively to all inquiries if asked by a patron/student the when
their account is free of such court orders. If a request does come
in then the db admin can either: fail to respond (monitoring
implied), tell them they are being monitored (violating the law) or
lie and say they are not even if they are. They can even charge a
fee for this service and use it as a new revenue source.
Looks like at least one library is trying a variation the method I
suggested...
"The Patriot Act also prohibits libraries and others from notifying
patrons and others that an investigation is ongoing. At least one
library has tried a solution to "beat the system" by regularly
informing the board of directors that there are no investigations.
If the director does not notify the Board that there are no
investigations, it can serve as a clue that something may be
happening. "
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1706/1/41
Can the Feds require a librarian to lie to a customer who inquires
whether their library usage is being monitored?
3 - For libraries a 3rd alternative is available. Libraries
routinely assess overdue fines and thus most have a cash register
at the checkout desk. If they allow patrons to remove books
without showing ID and charge them, as a refundable deposit, the
full replacement value in cash, then no records need be created
which can be turned over to law enforcement. A receipt might be
provided to the patron showing them the last day they may return
the book without forfeiting the deposit. They can even charge a
fee for this service and use it as a new revenue source.
Steve
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/