From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 18:13:48 +0800
To: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Money orders, debit cards, ...
In-Reply-To: <5l42hm$u44@joseph.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970511031130.0072fa1c@pop.sirius.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 02:12 AM 5/11/97 -0700, David Wagner wrote:

>(Note: contents of calls are protected by law, but traffic analysis
>specifically is allowed, far as I can tell.)

Correct. There is no (federal) constitutionally protected privacy interest in
traffic-analysis data about phone calls, because (so the argument goes) that
data is voluntarily disclosed to a third party (the phone company).

An argument might be available (in state court) based upon a state's
constitutional right to privacy/right to be free from unreasonable searches &
seizures, if there are any states left whose state constitutions are more
protective than the federal constitution. California and Oregon both used to
be more protective, but the wise and far-seeing voters in both states changed
that via the initiative process. Can't even blame that on the legislators. :(


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQEVAgUBM3WZg/37pMWUJFlhAQFUxQf/XjlD9a53YGoFFZRukCfl9sEo+se2pioH
QgocIjr+QU/cLMSR99OwUnhGMeNAgAo4teMVwVdIol+I/EA2+WJ2Q1FWlGIW7TtD
FTftPbXQQ8vNxTrni0sdi7YcYy2HsXK+Ll+qqyfe4HExvHcjs/FQn8zPtkh005Se
Err3uvzfE+IgWGUTOa+wC7C4w7SDYtlx4elvpEwYAPtSvYr8HtHZgY5yYIaoXb15
BTi1gMTIbL3UNcNWwwl6Bvpki6OWlzhT5wzWSmMPoBG5g67BrctSyWTp4kDVc19K
UQL5G9vNqelmfBkQ1MPUDgRCs4X57jvOjIz7BcdenQopjzbsaXDA/g==
=BFJ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
                            |