Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Vista
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.

Comments Mode:
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
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
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
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
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
On Unreasonable Searches 2005-02-09
Anonymous
On Unreasonable Searches 2005-02-10
Anonymous (1 replies)
On Unreasonable Searches 2005-02-11
Bob Radvanovsky
On Unreasonable Searches 2005-02-10
Anonymous
On Unreasonable Searches 2005-02-10
Unanimous
On Unreasonable Searches 2005-02-10
Anonymous (1 replies)
On Unreasonable Searches 2005-02-10
Anonymous (1 replies)
On Unreasonable Searches 2005-02-10
Mark D. Rasch
Scary... 2005-02-10
Anonymous
Analysis Flaw Revised 2005-02-10
Anonymous (2 replies)
Analysis Flaw Revised 2005-02-10
Anonymous (1 replies)
Analysis Flaw Revised 2005-02-10
Anonymous
Analysis Flaw Revised 2005-02-10
Mark Rasch (1 replies)
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
RealisticCanadian
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Louis Helmke
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Caged Rat
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Anonymous
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Anonymous (2 replies)
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Anonymous (1 replies)
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-11
Anonymous
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-12
Anonymous
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
a Seat Sniffer
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Edgar Whipple (2 replies)
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Anonymous (1 replies)
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-11
Edgar Whipple
No, because listening in unreasonably risks intruding upon legitimate conversation.

By its nature, unlawful activity cannot claim protection of the law for itself. The point behind political rights (as opposed to natural rights) that appear to protect something unlawful is that they are in fact protecting something else, something that is lawful and would be put at risk if the unlawful thing were not also shielded.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/297/30539#30539
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Walt Donovan (1 replies)
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Caged Rat
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-10
Anonymous
There is no "right to privacy" 2005-02-10
Andrew C. (1 replies)
Of Dog Sniffs and Packet Sniffs 2005-02-12
Anonymous
Privacy 2005-02-12
Anonymous







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2008, SecurityFocus