Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:40:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Bill Paul <wpaul@FreeBSD.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, 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: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909251417570.87332-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <199909251740.KAA07947@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > 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. Rod, I used to use a "butt-set" daily when I was a telephone tech, and a butt-set is in fact specifically designed to monitor telephone conversation where there is no provision for monitoring. Butt sets normally come with a "pincushion" terminal designed specifically for piercing wire insulation without damaging it or leaving evidence behind. An inductive pickup, also a *very* common linesman's tool, makes it so that someone doesn't even have to pierce the wire. These are very definitely legal tools, and they match (I think) bpf's capabilities, albeit for voice, not ip. > I think a good lawyer could argue in court that a lanalyzer is an illegal > device to ``produce, use, transport, etc, etc''. No, that's untrue, and it was litigated far before I was born. Just ask AT&T why their own network techs can monitor lines. This is not reasonable, Rod. The principle is totally identical to the telephone network. I think it's good to investigate, but I think presuming that it's illegal, when you have a huge precendent of legality on your side, is taking things way too far. Here's the way I had it explained to me, when I was listening in to your conversations as part of my job: You can listen for technical reasons all you want. You can make use of anything you hear for technical purposes, free and clear, no problem at all. You may NOT repeat anything you hear of the contents of the call, and you can't even listen at all unless you have a valid technical reason for doing it. The valid reason can be "quality control", so it doesn't have to be a documented technical complaint, you just can't make any use whatsoever of the actual intelligence collected. If I heard noise on your call, I could take action. If I heard you yelling at your wife and repeated that publicly, even if I was fixing your line after a valid complaint, I would go to jail. As long as you keep the words "privacy" in your mind, you're ok. If your tool has the capability of violating that privacy, it's no problem, as long as it also has, concommitantly, the ability to aid in troubleshooting communications resources. It's the use it's put to, not the capability it has. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C programming, Electronics, 213 Lakeside Dr. Apt. T-1 | communications, and signal processing. Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic.mat.net: FreeBSD-current(i386) and (301) 220-2114 | jaunt.mat.net : FreeBSD-current(Alpha) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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?Pine.BSF.4.10.9909251417570.87332-100000>