Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs

Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs
Mark Rasch, 2005-02-08

Why a Supreme Court decision on canine-assisted roadside searches opens the door to a new regime of Internet surveillance.

Expand all | Post comment

Logic a bit flawed 2005-02-08
Anonymous (1 replies)

Logic a bit flawed 2005-02-09
Mark D. Rasch (5 replies)

Logic a bit flawed 2005-02-10
Anonymous (1 replies)

Logic a bit flawed 2005-02-10
Anonymous

Kind of off 2005-02-10
MattJordan

Logic a bit flawed 2005-02-10
Anonymous (1 replies)

Logic a bit flawed 2005-02-11
Anonymous

Weak analysis 2005-02-08
Anonymous (1 replies)

Weak analysis 2005-02-09
Mark D. Rasch (1 replies)

That makes no sense, Mark. 2005-02-09
Anonymous

That makes no sense, Mark. It has always been unclear whether there are 4th Amendment protections in remotely stored and transmitted information under United States v. Miller and Smith v. Md. Congress protected this information by statute by passing in ECPA in 1986 precisely to ensure that there was privacy protection where there may not be 4th Amendment protection. So it makes no sense at all to predict that Congress will repeal Title III in light of Caballes.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/297/30451#30451

Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-08
Anonymous (2 replies)

Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
MDH (1 replies)

Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Anonymous

Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs - Where is it private v. public 2005-02-10
Anonymous

Does not follow (non sequiter) 2005-02-09
Anonymous

Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-09
Michael Britt

Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-09
A.W. Montville (1 replies)

Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Anonymous

Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-09
Anonymous

Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-09
Anonymous (1 replies)

On Unreasonable Searches 2005-02-09
Mark Rasch (7 replies)

On Unreasonable Searches 2005-02-09
Bob Radvanovsky