Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:40:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: chuckr@mat.net (Chuck Robey) Cc: wpaul@FreeBSD.org (Bill Paul), phk@critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp), cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/tc am7990.c src/sys/contrib/dev/oltr if_oltr.c src/sys/dev/ed if_ed.c src/sys/dev/iicbus if_ic Message-ID: <199909251740.KAA07947@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909251300270.87332-100000@picnic.mat.net> from Chuck Robey at "Sep 25, 1999 01:02:10 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Bill Paul wrote: > > > > In message <199909251642.JAA07776@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, "Rodney W. Grimes" writes > > > : > > > > > > >> Remove NBPF conditionality of bpf calls in most of our network drivers. > > > >... > > > > > > > >Can I ask that work on this be stopped for a few days while I get a > > > >proper legal opinion on 18 USC 2510 et seq. > > > > > > I suggest that have business as usual until we see what Sun does > > > about snoop in Solaris. If they don't feel like they have a problem, > > > we most certainly doesn't have one either. > > > > And SNOOP sockets in IRIX, and DLPI in HP-UX, and BPF in AIX (BPF is > > a loadable module in AIX, and tcpdump is included with the OS). > > If you can't adequately monitor/supervise your network connections without > bpf, and you use it regularly to solve problems, then it's in the realm of > things like telephone linemen's test telephones, which can also be used to > bug lines, right? Possibly, thats why I need to get a formal legal opinion, that has case law research attached to it. I am not sure just how this law has been applied and what is and is not really possible under the definitions. A telephone linemens test telephone is just that ``A telephone'', something that defanitly qualified under 18 USC 2510 (5) (ii). BPF has the problem in that it is _specifically_ designed for listing to something that normally would not be monitored. I think a good lawyer could argue in court that a lanalyzer is an illegal device to ``produce, use, transport, etc, etc''. I don't like it, but that is what the _letter_ of the law leads me to belive. The problem is we need to expand from the _letter_ of the law to what the courts have interpretted the _meaning_ and _intent_ of the law is. You can only do that through case law reasearch, and that costs $ and time. Since we, as a corporation, are at risk in this case I will make sure that legal fees are paid and I have something to smash my lawyer over the head with should we ever get suid for illegal wire tapping. [Another change to the code, there are now both criminal and civil penalities, in the past a business didn't even have to worry about that 18 USC 2510 said, now they can be suid by a private party under the laws so layed out :-(] I had ignored this code up until Sean pointed me at it, as I though the ECPA only applied to the Feds. Now it applies to me as a business man :-(. > Is that legal reference available online anywheres? Best one for all of them in once simple URL is: http://www.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Datenschutz/USA/ElectronicPrivacyAct.html You can find the 47 USC at www.fcc.gov some place, it's huge though, 338 pages. -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909251740.KAA07947>