--------8<------------
Sec 212 Emergency Disclosures by ISP's.
ISP's may now voluntarily, though not required, disclose private communications of their customers to law enforcement agencies when the threat of injury is discovered. It also indemnifies ISP's for doing so (you can't sue them).
--------8<------------

Look at the first word in there... "voluntary." By the by, the ISP's information on you isn't yours in the first place... they, like any other commercial enterprise, have the perfect right to sell it if it turns them on. One great big example would be Credit Bureaus...

IOW, you never had that 'right' in the first place, "privacy policy" be damned.

eBay does this right now without anyone involving the Patriot Act: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33050.html

So - what's next?

--------8<------------
[ref: sec 217] Except that autocompletion in explorer changes it to \\supersecretserver.microsoft.com and I fail to notice before hitting enter. Wham, I have attempted to illegally access a "secured system" belonging to microsoft, which is now an act of terror.
--------8<------------

A mistyped URL alone won't cut it. A prosecutor would have to prove that you made a concerted and deliberate effort to break into "supersecretserver.microsoft.com", else his case would go straight to hell.

It doesn't require F. Lee Bailey to realize that no jury on Earth would convict someone of hacking over a mistyped URL.

Besides, URL for this hypothetical autocompletion excersize in IE to work, it would require one to have already tried to access "supersecretserver.microsoft.com" before, ne?

--------8<------------
The unconstitutional seizure provisions that were enacted under Reagan and Bush I and were primarily responsible for eradicating all pot, coke, crystal meth, and veggie burgers from American existance have been carried over to the Patriot Act because of their resounding success during the "War on Drugs"
--------8<------------

We're discussing the Patriot Act itself and how it does nothing that doesn't already exist in case law - I said nothing about laws that existed beforehand. Also, to be politically fair: Those laws were signed in by a Democrat-controlled Congress, and Bill Clinton wasn't in any hurry to rescind them in the 8 years he had the job of President.

Ergo, if anyone's to blame for Drug laws, the blame lies squarely on both parties. Now, if you have problems with the drug laws, then go argue about those, otherwise it's a red herring.


--------8<------------
You can make what ever arguments that you want about my misinterpretting what is put to paper here, or my penchant for hyperbole, but this is an administration that has shown that it is more than willing to stretch the boundaries of the interpretation of the law to their very limits to accomplish what they want.
--------8<------------

Now, all you need are cites, or at least some kernel of factual proof. Do tell when and where this has supposedly happened... How have they "shown" us that it is more than willing to..., etc. etc.?

Otherwise, you're just talking partisan politics here, which is best reserved for talk.politics.misc, and not securityfocus.com ;)

Otherwise, I found this quite enjoyable...

/P

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/187/22803#22803