Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!well!dave
From: dave@well.UUCP (Dave Hughes)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Computer Virus Hearings
Summary: EPCA far better than nothing
Message-ID: <11853@well.UUCP>
Date: 27 May 89 03:10:40 GMT
References: <154@oldcolo.UUCP> <4246@ficc.uu.net> <513@atlas.tegra.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Lines: 26



You may flip off th eElectronic Privacy Act as 'badly designed' but
it sure is better than the total vacuum which preceeded it. One
woman lawyer in the midwest was a user of a bulletin-board. She got
into a dispute witht he Sysop, via private mail to him. He made
their private correspondence public online. She sued him under
the EPCA for $50,000. The betting is she will win. 
  The EPCA is quite enforcable on computer systems. 
  And it *ALSO* insures that the local police deaprtment cannot
call me up and say "hey we suspect this guy of doing bad things.
Turn over your tapes to us."  They would, according to the terms
of the law, go to court, show probable cause, and depend on whether
a judge agreed with them enough to approve a warrant. Which is the
only instument I have to honor. 
  It also says that, as a sysop, I *may*, if I detect illegal
activites online, turn that over to law enforcement. I am not
compelled to. 
  I say that is pretty sensible start on electronic privacy.
  As for cordless phones - pretty tough to 'include' them when
they can be intercepted and there is no encrptian of the traffic.
Which means it is public by definition. Anybody *accidentally* can
intercept it. (which means, if they were included, the accidental
interception would be illegal. *That* is pretty stupid.)
Dave Hughes
dave@oldcolo.uucp