1994-05-02 - Expectation of Privacy

Header Data

From: “Christian D. Odhner” <cdodhner@indirect.com>
To: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 8a86f80b55bfa2c9e17255a5f0b4ddeadcb996039f7a392f938d950667d6dafe
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9405012037.A9825-0100000@id1.indirect.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-02 03:38:03 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 1 May 94 20:38:03 PDT

Raw message

From: "Christian D. Odhner" <cdodhner@indirect.com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 94 20:38:03 PDT
To: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Expectation of Privacy
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9405012037.A9825-0100000@id1.indirect.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

I remember a while back (on this list I think) there was some discussion 
of a case in which it was ruled that the cops in some instance didn't 
need a warrent to intercept (or weren't in violation of ECPA?) a cordless 
phone phone call because the user didn't have the same "expectation of 
privacy" as they would with a normal phone... it seems to me the end 
judgement was that if the equipment you're using is easy enough to listen 
in on, then you can't complain if they do so. Fast-forward a few years to 
when the Digital Telephony Act and clippper chips have been mass 
deployed... does someone talking on a clipper phone over a DTA-compliant 
network have enough of an 'expectation of privacy' to require a warrent 
for intercepts?

Happy Hunting, -Chris.

Christian Douglas Odhner     | "The NSA can have my secret key when they pry
cdodhner@indirect.com	     | it from my cold, dead, hands... But they shall
pgp 2.3 public key by finger | NEVER have the password it's encrypted with!"
cypherpunks         WOw            dCD           Traskcom          Team Stupid
  Key fingerprint =  58 62 A2 84 FD 4F 56 38  82 69 6F 08 E4 F1 79 11