Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Eskridge
    Of course the parent or employer would have a signed document where the child or employee had expressly waived their expectation of privacy.its my
    Message 1 of 21 , May 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Of course the parent or employer would have a signed document where the
      child or employee had expressly waived their expectation of privacy.its' my
      internet.I'll let you use it.I will be monitoring it..but under these circs
      why would a pi be needed to install such a device????....remember that even
      a child has an expectation of privacy, unless properly waived...



      Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer

      High Tech Crime Institute

      28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204

      Clearwater Florida 33761

      727-499-7215

      888-300-9789

      www.gohtci.com



      _____

      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
      Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:54 PM
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL



      --- In infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com, "Jim Parker" <Jim@...> wrote:
      >
      > <<<< There are situations where it is legal. >>>
      >
      > What situations would those be, Vicki?
      >
      > More specifically, what "exemptions" are there to be found in the
      ECPA?

      I know that you were addressing Vicki, but I do want to respond..

      I am not aware of any specific exemptions to this anywhere, but I
      don't think a specific exemption is required in some instances..

      Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year old
      daughter's Internet usage?

      Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees Internet
      usage on the company computers; in the normal course of that
      employee's work day?

      Rick





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Thomas Eskridge
      (The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent s obligation to protect their child s safety and welfare outweighs any privacy issues and/or concerns that the
      Message 2 of 21 , May 8, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        (The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
        protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy issues
        and/or concerns that the child may have.)

        Citations Please



        The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
        two main ways:

        In the ordinary course of business



        Simply wrong..what your referring to is the ability of an ISP to open and
        view email in the normal course of business in order to ascertain if their
        system is working properly..to wit.aol may well in the normal course of
        business check every one millionth email.if they happen to view contraband
        they can call the cops and the evidence is admissible



        Your second permitting way.when the employee gives consent is in fact
        correct..



        I do not think for a moment that the original post had anything to do with a
        sniffer device placed on a network to view corporate or government
        email/traffic as is often done in corporate America with knowledge of the
        employees..the intent of the post was clearly directed to illegal
        sniffing..husband and wife kind of stuff...



        Anyway when your conspire with someone to commit a crime, such as providing
        intelligence to rob a bank (or to illegally install a logging device) and
        the people you coached to rob the bank, do rob the bank.you are generally
        going to be referred to as "the defendant"..from the California penal code..


        All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it
        be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act
        constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not
        being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all
        persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age
        of fourteen years, lunatics or idiots, to commit any crime, or who,
        by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another
        for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by
        threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any
        crime, are principals in any crime so committed.







        Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer

        High Tech Crime Institute

        28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204

        Clearwater Florida 33761

        727-499-7215

        888-300-9789

        www.gohtci.com



        _____

        From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
        On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
        Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:54 PM
        To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL



        --- In infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.com, "Jim Parker" <Jim@...> wrote:
        >
        > <<<< Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year
        old
        > daughter's Internet usage? >>>>
        >
        > And what if they do? Where would one find the "exception"
        or "exemption"
        > for teenage children?
        >
        > <<<< Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees
        Internet
        > usage on the company computers >>>>
        >
        > And precisely what would that have to do with a private
        investigator, and if
        > it did, would that mean that the company employees are
        all "subjects" of the
        > private investigator's investigation?
        >
        > Jim

        As I understand the original post: "It has come to my attention that
        some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
        computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the P.I could
        also be prosecuted!"

        To put my statement into context...

        I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and demonstrate to a
        parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
        purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. This
        does not mean to say that the Private Investigator that consulted to
        the parent on how to do this has any right to monitor that child's
        Internet usage in any way, only the parent does. However, this does
        go to the heart of this statement: "It has come to my attention that
        some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
        computer". As that the "subject" can be the child and the P.I. can
        be "encouraging" the parent (client?) to use the software described
        in this statement.

        The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
        protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy issues
        and/or concerns that the child may have.

        But to answer your question in as much of a straighforward way as I
        can while maintaining my right to be lazy enough to copy and paste,
        below are the exceptions to the ECPA:

        ----------------------------------------------------------
        "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services

        The ECPA prohibits employees of Internet providers from eavesdropping
        on subscribers' e-mail or other communication. However, it is not
        unlawful for these employees to intercept or disclose communication
        in the normal course of employment under two conditions:

        While engaged in the normal required performance of their jobs
        For the protection of the rights or property of the provider of the
        service the statute further restricts how such exceptions may occur,
        specifying that "service observing" and "random monitoring" may only
        be carried out for mechanical or quality control checks.

        Exceptions for Employers
        In contrast to private home usage of the Internet, Internet
        communication in the workplace is given far less privacy protection
        under the ECPA. Underpinning this difference are philosophical
        assumptions about how much privacy individuals may expect at home as
        opposed to what they may normally expect at work. As courts have long
        recognized, several factors influence this question: the nature of
        the workplace, the relationship between employees and employers, and
        the legal concerns of employers are all issues that shape why the
        employee has a lesser expectation of privacy at work than at home.

        The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
        two main ways:

        In the ordinary course of business
        When employees have given consent

        Because employer monitoring of employees has been at the heart of
        much LITIGATION, the courts have helped to define what these
        conditions mean. In determining whether monitoring is legal in the
        ordinary course of business, courts generally examine the reasons
        that businesses conduct the monitoring. Generally, workplace
        monitoring has been held to be legal under the ECPA where employers
        have provided notice of the policy to conduct monitoring and limited
        it to monitoring communication that is business-related rather than
        personal.

        Private business and public sector employees come under different
        laws. While employees may give consent to monitoring, the courts have
        also found that "implied consent" may exist. This consent occurs when
        employees know or should have known that their employers intercept
        their electronic communications. Public sector employers are subject
        to a different legal standard. Monitoring in a government workplace
        may trigger constitutional issues such as the First Amendment right
        to free speech or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an
        unreasonable search or seizure.

        Exceptions for Government Authorities
        The ECPA governs law enforcement access to private electronic
        communication. This statutory privacy is not absolute; however, the
        law recognizes that law enforcement must be able to conduct its work.
        But the government's power to have access to electronic communication
        unlimited. Like protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the
        U. S. Constitution, the law spells out limits upon government
        intrusion in this area of private life.

        Government agents must take specific steps before intercepting
        communication over the Internet, gaining access to stored
        communication, or obtaining subscriber information such as account
        records and network logs from Internet service providers. Generally,
        they must issue subpoenas or seek and execute court orders such as
        search warrants. Greater degrees of invasiveness require court
        authority. Thus investigators can SUBPOENA basic subscriber
        information, but they must obtain a SEARCH WARRANT for EXAMINATION of
        the full content of an account.

        An additional exception is created for employees or agents of the
        Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They may intercept or
        disclose communications in the normal course of employment duties or
        in discharging the FCC's federal monitoring responsibilities spelled
        out in Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

        Additional Exceptions Under the Patriot Act of 2001
        Signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 2001, the
        Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes new investigatory powers for law
        enforcement in response to terrorist attacks upon the nation. Not all
        of its powers are limited to use in fighting TERRORISM, however. The
        350-page law amends over one dozen existing statutes, including the
        ECPA, for use in investigations of COMPUTER CRIME and other offenses.
        Some of the ECPA changes relate to the law's protections for
        technologies other than the Internet, but a few circumscribe the
        existing privacy protections for Internet communications and usage.
        Not all are permanent. Many are subject to sunset provisions provided
        by lawmakers out of concern over potential long-term harm to civil
        liberties.

        Under the changes, law enforcement agents are able to conduct
        investigations with fewer legal hindrances:

        Agents may use the ECPA to compel cable Internet service providers to
        disclose customer Internet records without obtaining court orders.
        Agents have broader authority to obtain stored voice communications.
        This change to the ECPA allows agents to use a search WARRANT for
        examining all e-mail as well as any attachments to e-mail that might
        contain communication without having to seek further court authority.
        This change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
        Internet service providers may voluntarily make so-called "emergency
        disclosures"of information involving information previously
        prohibited from disclosure under the ECPA. This information includes
        all customer records and customer communications. The disclosures are
        permitted in situations involving immediate risk of death or serious
        physical injury to any person. However, the law merely permits such
        disclosure but does not create an obligation to make them. This
        change will sunset on December 31, 2005.

        Without altering the ECPA, other provisions of the Patriot Act also
        increase police powers that potentially impact Internet privacy.
        These include:

        Extending the authority to trace communications on computer networks
        in a manner similar to tracing telephone calls, along with giving
        federal courts the power to compel assistance from any communication
        provider allowing agents to obtain nationwide search warrants for e-
        mail without the traditional requirement that the issuing court be
        within the relevant JURISDICTION. This change will sunset on December
        31, 2005"
        ----------------------------------------------------------

        For full view of the document I quoted from, go to the URL listed
        here: http://law.enotes
        <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy>
        com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy

        Rick.





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • jbran101147@aol.com
        It has come to my attention that some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so & the P.I
        Message 3 of 21 , May 9, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          It has come to my attention that some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware
          to monitor a subjects computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &
          the P.I could also be prosecuted!
          Jack JB Investigations
          P.I. 3120



          ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Vicki Siedow
          This is not always the case. There are situations where it is legal. We all need to be aware of and follow the laws of the jurisdiction, but we can use the
          Message 4 of 21 , May 9, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            This is not always the case. There are situations where it is legal. We
            all need to be aware of and follow the laws of the jurisdiction, but we can
            use the exceptions and exemptions the laws afford. I could reply more
            intelligently if you had a complete signature block, letting us know who and
            where you are.



            Vicki Siedow
            Siedow & Associates Investigations
            & Legal Support Services
            2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
            La Crescenta, CA 91214
            Los Angeles County
            CA PI License # 22852
            800.448.6431 toll free
            818.242.0130 local
            818.688.3295 fax
            <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com
            <mailto:Siedow@...> Siedow@...
            Member NCISS, IWWA

            Need economical legal help?
            Concerned about Identity Theft?
            Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.



            _____

            From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
            On Behalf Of jbran101147@...
            Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 12:37 PM
            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [infoguys-list] ILLEGAL



            It has come to my attention that some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware
            to monitor a subjects computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &
            the P.I could also be prosecuted!
            Jack JB Investigations
            P.I. 3120



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jim Parker
            What situations would those be, Vicki? More specifically, what exemptions are there to be found in the
            Message 5 of 21 , May 9, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              <<<< There are situations where it is legal. >>>

              What situations would those be, Vicki?

              More specifically, what "exemptions" are there to be found in the ECPA?

              Jim



              -----Original Message-----
              From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
              On Behalf Of Vicki Siedow
              Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 4:01 PM
              To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] ILLEGAL

              This is not always the case. There are situations where it is legal. We
              all need to be aware of and follow the laws of the jurisdiction, but we can
              use the exceptions and exemptions the laws afford. I could reply more
              intelligently if you had a complete signature block, letting us know who and
              where you are.

              Vicki Siedow
              Siedow & Associates Investigations
              & Legal Support Services
              2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
              La Crescenta, CA 91214
              Los Angeles County
              CA PI License # 22852
              800.448.6431 toll free
              818.242.0130 local
              818.688.3295 fax
              <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/ <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> >
              http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com <http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com>
              <mailto:Siedow@... <mailto:Siedow%40LawAndOrder.com> >
              Siedow@... <mailto:Siedow%40LawAndOrder.com>
              Member NCISS, IWWA

              Need economical legal help?
              Concerned about Identity Theft?
              Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.

              _____

              From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
              [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
              <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ]
              On Behalf Of jbran101147@... <mailto:jbran101147%40aol.com>
              Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 12:37 PM
              To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: [infoguys-list] ILLEGAL

              It has come to my attention that some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware
              to monitor a subjects computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &
              the P.I could also be prosecuted!
              Jack JB Investigations
              P.I. 3120

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ricky Gurley
              ... ECPA? I know that you were addressing Vicki, but I do want to respond.. I am not aware of any specific exemptions to this anywhere, but I don t think a
              Message 6 of 21 , May 9, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Parker" <Jim@...> wrote:
                >
                > <<<< There are situations where it is legal. >>>
                >
                > What situations would those be, Vicki?
                >
                > More specifically, what "exemptions" are there to be found in the
                ECPA?


                I know that you were addressing Vicki, but I do want to respond..


                I am not aware of any specific exemptions to this anywhere, but I
                don't think a specific exemption is required in some instances..

                Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year old
                daughter's Internet usage?

                Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees Internet
                usage on the company computers; in the normal course of that
                employee's work day?




                Rick
              • Jim Parker
                And what if they do? Where would one find the
                Message 7 of 21 , May 9, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  <<<< Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year old
                  daughter's Internet usage? >>>>

                  And what if they do? Where would one find the "exception" or "exemption"
                  for teenage children?

                  <<<< Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees Internet
                  usage on the company computers >>>>

                  And precisely what would that have to do with a private investigator, and if
                  it did, would that mean that the company employees are all "subjects" of the
                  private investigator's investigation?

                  Jim

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                  On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                  Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:54 PM
                  To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL

                  --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                  <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jim Parker" <Jim@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > <<<< There are situations where it is legal. >>>
                  >
                  > What situations would those be, Vicki?
                  >
                  > More specifically, what "exemptions" are there to be found in the
                  ECPA?

                  I know that you were addressing Vicki, but I do want to respond..

                  I am not aware of any specific exemptions to this anywhere, but I
                  don't think a specific exemption is required in some instances..

                  Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year old
                  daughter's Internet usage?

                  Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees Internet
                  usage on the company computers; in the normal course of that
                  employee's work day?

                  Rick
                • Ricky Gurley
                  ... old ... or exemption ... Internet ... investigator, and if ... all subjects of the ... As I understand the original post: It has come to my attention
                  Message 8 of 21 , May 9, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Parker" <Jim@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > <<<< Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year
                    old
                    > daughter's Internet usage? >>>>
                    >
                    > And what if they do? Where would one find the "exception"
                    or "exemption"
                    > for teenage children?
                    >
                    > <<<< Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees
                    Internet
                    > usage on the company computers >>>>
                    >
                    > And precisely what would that have to do with a private
                    investigator, and if
                    > it did, would that mean that the company employees are
                    all "subjects" of the
                    > private investigator's investigation?
                    >
                    > Jim


                    As I understand the original post: "It has come to my attention that
                    some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                    computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the P.I could
                    also be prosecuted!"


                    To put my statement into context...

                    I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and demonstrate to a
                    parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
                    purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. This
                    does not mean to say that the Private Investigator that consulted to
                    the parent on how to do this has any right to monitor that child's
                    Internet usage in any way, only the parent does. However, this does
                    go to the heart of this statement: "It has come to my attention that
                    some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                    computer". As that the "subject" can be the child and the P.I. can
                    be "encouraging" the parent (client?) to use the software described
                    in this statement.

                    The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                    protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy issues
                    and/or concerns that the child may have.

                    But to answer your question in as much of a straighforward way as I
                    can while maintaining my right to be lazy enough to copy and paste,
                    below are the exceptions to the ECPA:

                    -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services

                    The ECPA prohibits employees of Internet providers from eavesdropping
                    on subscribers' e-mail or other communication. However, it is not
                    unlawful for these employees to intercept or disclose communication
                    in the normal course of employment under two conditions:

                    While engaged in the normal required performance of their jobs
                    For the protection of the rights or property of the provider of the
                    service the statute further restricts how such exceptions may occur,
                    specifying that "service observing" and "random monitoring" may only
                    be carried out for mechanical or quality control checks.

                    Exceptions for Employers
                    In contrast to private home usage of the Internet, Internet
                    communication in the workplace is given far less privacy protection
                    under the ECPA. Underpinning this difference are philosophical
                    assumptions about how much privacy individuals may expect at home as
                    opposed to what they may normally expect at work. As courts have long
                    recognized, several factors influence this question: the nature of
                    the workplace, the relationship between employees and employers, and
                    the legal concerns of employers are all issues that shape why the
                    employee has a lesser expectation of privacy at work than at home.

                    The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
                    two main ways:

                    In the ordinary course of business
                    When employees have given consent

                    Because employer monitoring of employees has been at the heart of
                    much LITIGATION, the courts have helped to define what these
                    conditions mean. In determining whether monitoring is legal in the
                    ordinary course of business, courts generally examine the reasons
                    that businesses conduct the monitoring. Generally, workplace
                    monitoring has been held to be legal under the ECPA where employers
                    have provided notice of the policy to conduct monitoring and limited
                    it to monitoring communication that is business-related rather than
                    personal.

                    Private business and public sector employees come under different
                    laws. While employees may give consent to monitoring, the courts have
                    also found that "implied consent" may exist. This consent occurs when
                    employees know or should have known that their employers intercept
                    their electronic communications. Public sector employers are subject
                    to a different legal standard. Monitoring in a government workplace
                    may trigger constitutional issues such as the First Amendment right
                    to free speech or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an
                    unreasonable search or seizure.

                    Exceptions for Government Authorities
                    The ECPA governs law enforcement access to private electronic
                    communication. This statutory privacy is not absolute; however, the
                    law recognizes that law enforcement must be able to conduct its work.
                    But the government's power to have access to electronic communication
                    unlimited. Like protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the
                    U. S. Constitution, the law spells out limits upon government
                    intrusion in this area of private life.

                    Government agents must take specific steps before intercepting
                    communication over the Internet, gaining access to stored
                    communication, or obtaining subscriber information such as account
                    records and network logs from Internet service providers. Generally,
                    they must issue subpoenas or seek and execute court orders such as
                    search warrants. Greater degrees of invasiveness require court
                    authority. Thus investigators can SUBPOENA basic subscriber
                    information, but they must obtain a SEARCH WARRANT for EXAMINATION of
                    the full content of an account.

                    An additional exception is created for employees or agents of the
                    Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They may intercept or
                    disclose communications in the normal course of employment duties or
                    in discharging the FCC's federal monitoring responsibilities spelled
                    out in Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

                    Additional Exceptions Under the Patriot Act of 2001
                    Signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 2001, the
                    Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes new investigatory powers for law
                    enforcement in response to terrorist attacks upon the nation. Not all
                    of its powers are limited to use in fighting TERRORISM, however. The
                    350-page law amends over one dozen existing statutes, including the
                    ECPA, for use in investigations of COMPUTER CRIME and other offenses.
                    Some of the ECPA changes relate to the law's protections for
                    technologies other than the Internet, but a few circumscribe the
                    existing privacy protections for Internet communications and usage.
                    Not all are permanent. Many are subject to sunset provisions provided
                    by lawmakers out of concern over potential long-term harm to civil
                    liberties.

                    Under the changes, law enforcement agents are able to conduct
                    investigations with fewer legal hindrances:

                    Agents may use the ECPA to compel cable Internet service providers to
                    disclose customer Internet records without obtaining court orders.
                    Agents have broader authority to obtain stored voice communications.
                    This change to the ECPA allows agents to use a search WARRANT for
                    examining all e-mail as well as any attachments to e-mail that might
                    contain communication without having to seek further court authority.
                    This change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                    Internet service providers may voluntarily make so-called "emergency
                    disclosures"of information involving information previously
                    prohibited from disclosure under the ECPA. This information includes
                    all customer records and customer communications. The disclosures are
                    permitted in situations involving immediate risk of death or serious
                    physical injury to any person. However, the law merely permits such
                    disclosure but does not create an obligation to make them. This
                    change will sunset on December 31, 2005.

                    Without altering the ECPA, other provisions of the Patriot Act also
                    increase police powers that potentially impact Internet privacy.
                    These include:

                    Extending the authority to trace communications on computer networks
                    in a manner similar to tracing telephone calls, along with giving
                    federal courts the power to compel assistance from any communication
                    provider allowing agents to obtain nationwide search warrants for e-
                    mail without the traditional requirement that the issuing court be
                    within the relevant JURISDICTION. This change will sunset on December
                    31, 2005"
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------

                    For full view of the document I quoted from, go to the URL listed
                    here: http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy



                    Rick.
                  • Ricky Gurley
                    ... issues ... How about one even better than that? How about a Presidential Decree that tells ISPS that they MUST encourage parents to monitor thier
                    Message 9 of 21 , May 9, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Eskridge" <TOM@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > (The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                      > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                      issues
                      > and/or concerns that the child may have.)
                      >
                      > Citations Please

                      How about one even better than that? How about a Presidential Decree
                      that tells ISPS that they MUST encourage parents to monitor thier
                      children's Internet usage? Would that be as good?

                      "In consideration of decree 1279/97, resolution 1235/98 dated May 22,
                      1998, requires ISPs to insert the following text into invoices sent
                      to users: "The National State does not control or regulate
                      information available on the Internet. Parents are recommended to
                      exercise reasonable control over the content accessed by their
                      children. It is advisable to consult your ISP to obtain suitable
                      advice on programs designed to prohibit access to undesirable sites."

                      This is a mandatory advisory put forth in a Presedential Decree that
                      makes it clear that the parents have a right to control the content
                      that their children can view, and it makes sense that unless the
                      parent knows what their child is viewing, they can't control it...

                      A note: Although the writer talks about e-mail and Internet
                      monitoring, please remember that an e-mail program on a computer is
                      connected to a telephone line, and thus, there is nothing to
                      distinguish a "writing" (as in e-mail), versus an oral conversation.
                      It is all conversation and communication, nonetheless, no matter the
                      actual form.

                      Citations:

                      Newcomb v. Ingle (10th Cir. 1991) 944 F.2d 1534, 1536]

                      Thompson v. Dulaney , 838 F. Supp. 1535 (D. Utah 1993)
                      "The district court in Thompson was the first court to address the
                      authority of a parent to vicariously consent to the taping of phone
                      conversations on behalf of minor children. In Thompson , a mother,
                      who had custody of her three- and five-year-old children, recorded
                      conversations between the children and their father (her ex-husband)
                      from a telephone in her home. 838 F. Supp. at 1537. The court held:
                      [A]s long as the guardian has a good faith basis that it is
                      objectively reasonable for believing that it is necessary to consent
                      on behalf of her minor children to the taping of phone conversations,
                      vicarious consent will be permissible in order for the guardian to
                      fulfill her statutory mandate to act in the best interests of the
                      children.

                      After this review of the relevant case law, we conclude that although
                      the child in this case is older than the children in the cases
                      discussed above in which the doctrine of vicarious consent has been
                      adopted, we agree with the district court's adoption of the doctrine,
                      provided that a clear emphasis is put on the need for
                      the "consenting" parent to demonstrate a good faith, objectively
                      reasonable basis for believing such consent was necessary for the
                      welfare of the child. Accordingly, we adopt the standard set forth by
                      the district court in Thompson and hold that as long as the guardian
                      has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for believing that it
                      is necessary and in the best interest of the child to consent on
                      behalf of his or her minor child to the taping of telephone
                      conversations, the guardian may vicariously consent on behalf of the
                      child to the recording. See Thompson , 838 F. Supp. at 1544. Such
                      vicarious consent will be exempt from liability under Title III,
                      pursuant to the consent exception contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)
                      (d).

                      In a sentence... Vacarious Consent can be used to monitor a child's
                      Internet usage just like it can be to monitor a child's phone
                      conversations.

                      Implied Consent can also be used as an exception...


                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
                      > two main ways:
                      >
                      > In the ordinary course of business
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Simply wrong..what your referring to is the ability of an ISP to
                      open and
                      > view email in the normal course of business in order to ascertain
                      if their
                      > system is working properly..to wit.aol may well in the normal
                      course of
                      > business check every one millionth email.if they happen to view
                      contraband
                      > they can call the cops and the evidence is admissible

                      Tom, there is nothing "wrong" about that statement. Read the heading:
                      "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services". That pretty much
                      states what you just stated in a paragraph, nonetheless it is an
                      exception to the ECPA, and that is what Jim asked for. Furthermore,
                      read the part where I plainly state that these exceptions were a copy
                      and paste.... To apply this, what is to say that a P.I. could not
                      consult to an ISP on how to legally monitor their Internet traffic
                      under the requirements set forth above?. To be correct, the statement
                      does not read "The ISP may open email to see if their system's are
                      working correctly"; instead it states: "The law permits private
                      employers to monitor WORKER e-mail usage in the ordinary course of
                      business"; read that again, it expressly implies that the employer
                      can monitor employee email i.e. WORKER EMAIL. The word "WORKER"
                      pretty much sums it up.... It does not read "CUSTOMER EMAIL", it
                      reads "WORKER EMAIL".



                      >
                      >
                      > Your second permitting way.when the employee gives consent is in
                      fact
                      > correct..
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > I do not think for a moment that the original post had anything to
                      do with a
                      > sniffer device placed on a network to view corporate or government
                      > email/traffic as is often done in corporate America with knowledge
                      of the
                      > employees..the intent of the post was clearly directed to illegal
                      > sniffing..husband and wife kind of stuff...

                      I never saw the words "husband" or "wife" anywhere in the original
                      post. As a matter of fact I did not see any specific examples of what
                      the original poster was referring to.

                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Anyway when your conspire with someone to commit a crime, such as
                      providing
                      > intelligence to rob a bank (or to illegally install a logging
                      device) and
                      > the people you coached to rob the bank, do rob the bank.you are
                      generally
                      > going to be referred to as "the defendant"..from the California
                      penal code..
                      >
                      >
                      > All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it
                      > be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act
                      > constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not
                      > being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all
                      > persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age
                      > of fourteen years, lunatics or idiots, to commit any crime, or who,
                      > by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another
                      > for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by
                      > threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any
                      > crime, are principals in any crime so committed.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer
                      >
                      > High Tech Crime Institute
                      >
                      > 28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204
                      >
                      > Clearwater Florida 33761
                      >
                      > 727-499-7215
                      >
                      > 888-300-9789
                      >
                      > www.gohtci.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > _____
                      >
                      > From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-
                      list@yahoogroups.com]
                      > On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                      > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:54 PM
                      > To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                      > yahoogroups.com, "Jim Parker" <Jim@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > <<<< Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year
                      > old
                      > > daughter's Internet usage? >>>>
                      > >
                      > > And what if they do? Where would one find the "exception"
                      > or "exemption"
                      > > for teenage children?
                      > >
                      > > <<<< Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees
                      > Internet
                      > > usage on the company computers >>>>
                      > >
                      > > And precisely what would that have to do with a private
                      > investigator, and if
                      > > it did, would that mean that the company employees are
                      > all "subjects" of the
                      > > private investigator's investigation?
                      > >
                      > > Jim
                      >
                      > As I understand the original post: "It has come to my attention
                      that
                      > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                      > computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the P.I could
                      > also be prosecuted!"
                      >
                      > To put my statement into context...
                      >
                      > I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and demonstrate to
                      a
                      > parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
                      > purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. This
                      > does not mean to say that the Private Investigator that consulted
                      to
                      > the parent on how to do this has any right to monitor that child's
                      > Internet usage in any way, only the parent does. However, this does
                      > go to the heart of this statement: "It has come to my attention
                      that
                      > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                      > computer". As that the "subject" can be the child and the P.I. can
                      > be "encouraging" the parent (client?) to use the software described
                      > in this statement.
                      >
                      > The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                      > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                      issues
                      > and/or concerns that the child may have.
                      >
                      > But to answer your question in as much of a straighforward way as I
                      > can while maintaining my right to be lazy enough to copy and paste,
                      > below are the exceptions to the ECPA:
                      >
                      > ----------------------------------------------------------
                      > "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services
                      >
                      > The ECPA prohibits employees of Internet providers from
                      eavesdropping
                      > on subscribers' e-mail or other communication. However, it is not
                      > unlawful for these employees to intercept or disclose communication
                      > in the normal course of employment under two conditions:
                      >
                      > While engaged in the normal required performance of their jobs
                      > For the protection of the rights or property of the provider of the
                      > service the statute further restricts how such exceptions may
                      occur,
                      > specifying that "service observing" and "random monitoring" may
                      only
                      > be carried out for mechanical or quality control checks.
                      >
                      > Exceptions for Employers
                      > In contrast to private home usage of the Internet, Internet
                      > communication in the workplace is given far less privacy protection
                      > under the ECPA. Underpinning this difference are philosophical
                      > assumptions about how much privacy individuals may expect at home
                      as
                      > opposed to what they may normally expect at work. As courts have
                      long
                      > recognized, several factors influence this question: the nature of
                      > the workplace, the relationship between employees and employers,
                      and
                      > the legal concerns of employers are all issues that shape why the
                      > employee has a lesser expectation of privacy at work than at home.
                      >
                      > The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
                      > two main ways:
                      >
                      > In the ordinary course of business
                      > When employees have given consent
                      >
                      > Because employer monitoring of employees has been at the heart of
                      > much LITIGATION, the courts have helped to define what these
                      > conditions mean. In determining whether monitoring is legal in the
                      > ordinary course of business, courts generally examine the reasons
                      > that businesses conduct the monitoring. Generally, workplace
                      > monitoring has been held to be legal under the ECPA where employers
                      > have provided notice of the policy to conduct monitoring and
                      limited
                      > it to monitoring communication that is business-related rather than
                      > personal.
                      >
                      > Private business and public sector employees come under different
                      > laws. While employees may give consent to monitoring, the courts
                      have
                      > also found that "implied consent" may exist. This consent occurs
                      when
                      > employees know or should have known that their employers intercept
                      > their electronic communications. Public sector employers are
                      subject
                      > to a different legal standard. Monitoring in a government workplace
                      > may trigger constitutional issues such as the First Amendment right
                      > to free speech or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an
                      > unreasonable search or seizure.
                      >
                      > Exceptions for Government Authorities
                      > The ECPA governs law enforcement access to private electronic
                      > communication. This statutory privacy is not absolute; however, the
                      > law recognizes that law enforcement must be able to conduct its
                      work.
                      > But the government's power to have access to electronic
                      communication
                      > unlimited. Like protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the
                      > U. S. Constitution, the law spells out limits upon government
                      > intrusion in this area of private life.
                      >
                      > Government agents must take specific steps before intercepting
                      > communication over the Internet, gaining access to stored
                      > communication, or obtaining subscriber information such as account
                      > records and network logs from Internet service providers.
                      Generally,
                      > they must issue subpoenas or seek and execute court orders such as
                      > search warrants. Greater degrees of invasiveness require court
                      > authority. Thus investigators can SUBPOENA basic subscriber
                      > information, but they must obtain a SEARCH WARRANT for EXAMINATION
                      of
                      > the full content of an account.
                      >
                      > An additional exception is created for employees or agents of the
                      > Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They may intercept or
                      > disclose communications in the normal course of employment duties
                      or
                      > in discharging the FCC's federal monitoring responsibilities
                      spelled
                      > out in Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code.
                      >
                      > Additional Exceptions Under the Patriot Act of 2001
                      > Signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 2001, the
                      > Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes new investigatory powers for law
                      > enforcement in response to terrorist attacks upon the nation. Not
                      all
                      > of its powers are limited to use in fighting TERRORISM, however.
                      The
                      > 350-page law amends over one dozen existing statutes, including the
                      > ECPA, for use in investigations of COMPUTER CRIME and other
                      offenses.
                      > Some of the ECPA changes relate to the law's protections for
                      > technologies other than the Internet, but a few circumscribe the
                      > existing privacy protections for Internet communications and usage.
                      > Not all are permanent. Many are subject to sunset provisions
                      provided
                      > by lawmakers out of concern over potential long-term harm to civil
                      > liberties.
                      >
                      > Under the changes, law enforcement agents are able to conduct
                      > investigations with fewer legal hindrances:
                      >
                      > Agents may use the ECPA to compel cable Internet service providers
                      to
                      > disclose customer Internet records without obtaining court orders.
                      > Agents have broader authority to obtain stored voice
                      communications.
                      > This change to the ECPA allows agents to use a search WARRANT for
                      > examining all e-mail as well as any attachments to e-mail that
                      might
                      > contain communication without having to seek further court
                      authority.
                      > This change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                      > Internet service providers may voluntarily make so-
                      called "emergency
                      > disclosures"of information involving information previously
                      > prohibited from disclosure under the ECPA. This information
                      includes
                      > all customer records and customer communications. The disclosures
                      are
                      > permitted in situations involving immediate risk of death or
                      serious
                      > physical injury to any person. However, the law merely permits such
                      > disclosure but does not create an obligation to make them. This
                      > change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                      >
                      > Without altering the ECPA, other provisions of the Patriot Act also
                      > increase police powers that potentially impact Internet privacy.
                      > These include:
                      >
                      > Extending the authority to trace communications on computer
                      networks
                      > in a manner similar to tracing telephone calls, along with giving
                      > federal courts the power to compel assistance from any
                      communication
                      > provider allowing agents to obtain nationwide search warrants for e-
                      > mail without the traditional requirement that the issuing court be
                      > within the relevant JURISDICTION. This change will sunset on
                      December
                      > 31, 2005"
                      > ----------------------------------------------------------
                      >
                      > For full view of the document I quoted from, go to the URL listed
                      > here: http://law.enotes
                      > <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy>
                      > com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy
                      >
                      > Rick.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    • Jim Parker
                      Message 10 of 21 , May 9, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        <<<< The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                        protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy issues
                        and/or concerns that the child may have. >>>>

                        Oh really? And which US Supreme Court case would that be?


                        <<<< I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and demonstrate to a
                        parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
                        purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. >>>>

                        And if the Private Investigator does not inform the parent of the legal
                        ramifications of such an act, the Private Investigator best have his
                        insurance paid up. Oh wait - insurance doesn't generally cover intentional
                        legal acts. Hmm.. can you say "second mortgage?" Sure, I knew you could.

                        Of course, the Private Investigator COULD tell the parent of the legal
                        ramifications involved, but then should be continue to "advise and
                        demonstrate . . . how to install and use a monitoring program" knowing that
                        the intent is to use it in a manner that violates US or State law, then
                        that's a little thing we like to call "conspiracy".

                        Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

                        As for employee monitoring, as the article you quoted clearly states,
                        employees are afforded "far less privacy protection..." By no stretch of
                        the imagination, does that say they are afforded NO privacy protection.
                        There is no blanket exemption to the ECPA for monitoring employees.

                        Also, as a general rule, should an employer be authorized to monitor his/her
                        employees communications, that monitoring must be restricted solely to
                        business communications. The monitoring of private communications generally
                        crosses the line, so assuming no one has invented a psychic computer
                        monitoring program, how is going to possibly tell the difference between
                        personal and business communications?

                        However, all the extraneous BS aside, I don't think there is a lot of doubt
                        in anyone's mind the context intended in the original post, and it had
                        little or nothing to do with children or employees.

                        Jim



                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                        On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                        Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:54 PM
                        To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL

                        --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                        <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jim Parker" <Jim@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > <<<< Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year
                        old
                        > daughter's Internet usage? >>>>
                        >
                        > And what if they do? Where would one find the "exception"
                        or "exemption"
                        > for teenage children?
                        >
                        > <<<< Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees
                        Internet
                        > usage on the company computers >>>>
                        >
                        > And precisely what would that have to do with a private
                        investigator, and if
                        > it did, would that mean that the company employees are
                        all "subjects" of the
                        > private investigator's investigation?
                        >
                        > Jim

                        As I understand the original post: "It has come to my attention that
                        some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                        computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the P.I could
                        also be prosecuted!"

                        To put my statement into context...

                        I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and demonstrate to a
                        parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
                        purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. This
                        does not mean to say that the Private Investigator that consulted to
                        the parent on how to do this has any right to monitor that child's
                        Internet usage in any way, only the parent does. However, this does
                        go to the heart of this statement: "It has come to my attention that
                        some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                        computer". As that the "subject" can be the child and the P.I. can
                        be "encouraging" the parent (client?) to use the software described
                        in this statement.

                        The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                        protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy issues
                        and/or concerns that the child may have.

                        But to answer your question in as much of a straighforward way as I
                        can while maintaining my right to be lazy enough to copy and paste,
                        below are the exceptions to the ECPA:

                        ----------------------------------------------------------
                        "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services

                        The ECPA prohibits employees of Internet providers from eavesdropping
                        on subscribers' e-mail or other communication. However, it is not
                        unlawful for these employees to intercept or disclose communication
                        in the normal course of employment under two conditions:

                        While engaged in the normal required performance of their jobs
                        For the protection of the rights or property of the provider of the
                        service the statute further restricts how such exceptions may occur,
                        specifying that "service observing" and "random monitoring" may only
                        be carried out for mechanical or quality control checks.

                        Exceptions for Employers
                        In contrast to private home usage of the Internet, Internet
                        communication in the workplace is given far less privacy protection
                        under the ECPA. Underpinning this difference are philosophical
                        assumptions about how much privacy individuals may expect at home as
                        opposed to what they may normally expect at work. As courts have long
                        recognized, several factors influence this question: the nature of
                        the workplace, the relationship between employees and employers, and
                        the legal concerns of employers are all issues that shape why the
                        employee has a lesser expectation of privacy at work than at home.

                        The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
                        two main ways:

                        In the ordinary course of business
                        When employees have given consent

                        Because employer monitoring of employees has been at the heart of
                        much LITIGATION, the courts have helped to define what these
                        conditions mean. In determining whether monitoring is legal in the
                        ordinary course of business, courts generally examine the reasons
                        that businesses conduct the monitoring. Generally, workplace
                        monitoring has been held to be legal under the ECPA where employers
                        have provided notice of the policy to conduct monitoring and limited
                        it to monitoring communication that is business-related rather than
                        personal.

                        Private business and public sector employees come under different
                        laws. While employees may give consent to monitoring, the courts have
                        also found that "implied consent" may exist. This consent occurs when
                        employees know or should have known that their employers intercept
                        their electronic communications. Public sector employers are subject
                        to a different legal standard. Monitoring in a government workplace
                        may trigger constitutional issues such as the First Amendment right
                        to free speech or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an
                        unreasonable search or seizure.

                        Exceptions for Government Authorities
                        The ECPA governs law enforcement access to private electronic
                        communication. This statutory privacy is not absolute; however, the
                        law recognizes that law enforcement must be able to conduct its work.
                        But the government's power to have access to electronic communication
                        unlimited. Like protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the
                        U. S. Constitution, the law spells out limits upon government
                        intrusion in this area of private life.

                        Government agents must take specific steps before intercepting
                        communication over the Internet, gaining access to stored
                        communication, or obtaining subscriber information such as account
                        records and network logs from Internet service providers. Generally,
                        they must issue subpoenas or seek and execute court orders such as
                        search warrants. Greater degrees of invasiveness require court
                        authority. Thus investigators can SUBPOENA basic subscriber
                        information, but they must obtain a SEARCH WARRANT for EXAMINATION of
                        the full content of an account.

                        An additional exception is created for employees or agents of the
                        Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They may intercept or
                        disclose communications in the normal course of employment duties or
                        in discharging the FCC's federal monitoring responsibilities spelled
                        out in Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

                        Additional Exceptions Under the Patriot Act of 2001
                        Signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 2001, the
                        Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes new investigatory powers for law
                        enforcement in response to terrorist attacks upon the nation. Not all
                        of its powers are limited to use in fighting TERRORISM, however. The
                        350-page law amends over one dozen existing statutes, including the
                        ECPA, for use in investigations of COMPUTER CRIME and other offenses.
                        Some of the ECPA changes relate to the law's protections for
                        technologies other than the Internet, but a few circumscribe the
                        existing privacy protections for Internet communications and usage.
                        Not all are permanent. Many are subject to sunset provisions provided
                        by lawmakers out of concern over potential long-term harm to civil
                        liberties.

                        Under the changes, law enforcement agents are able to conduct
                        investigations with fewer legal hindrances:

                        Agents may use the ECPA to compel cable Internet service providers to
                        disclose customer Internet records without obtaining court orders.
                        Agents have broader authority to obtain stored voice communications.
                        This change to the ECPA allows agents to use a search WARRANT for
                        examining all e-mail as well as any attachments to e-mail that might
                        contain communication without having to seek further court authority.
                        This change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                        Internet service providers may voluntarily make so-called "emergency
                        disclosures"of information involving information previously
                        prohibited from disclosure under the ECPA. This information includes
                        all customer records and customer communications. The disclosures are
                        permitted in situations involving immediate risk of death or serious
                        physical injury to any person. However, the law merely permits such
                        disclosure but does not create an obligation to make them. This
                        change will sunset on December 31, 2005.

                        Without altering the ECPA, other provisions of the Patriot Act also
                        increase police powers that potentially impact Internet privacy.
                        These include:

                        Extending the authority to trace communications on computer networks
                        in a manner similar to tracing telephone calls, along with giving
                        federal courts the power to compel assistance from any communication
                        provider allowing agents to obtain nationwide search warrants for e-
                        mail without the traditional requirement that the issuing court be
                        within the relevant JURISDICTION. This change will sunset on December
                        31, 2005"
                        ----------------------------------------------------------

                        For full view of the document I quoted from, go to the URL listed
                        here: http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy
                        <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy>

                        Rick.
                      • Ricky Gurley
                        ... to ... issues ... Addressed in in previous post to Tom Eskridge..... Two citations actually.... ... demonstrate to a ... legal ... intentional ... could.
                        Message 11 of 21 , May 9, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Parker" <Jim@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > <<<< The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation
                          to
                          > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                          issues
                          > and/or concerns that the child may have. >>>>
                          >
                          > Oh really? And which US Supreme Court case would that be?

                          Addressed in in previous post to Tom Eskridge..... Two citations
                          actually....



                          >
                          > <<<< I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and
                          demonstrate to a
                          > parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
                          > purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. >>>>
                          >
                          > And if the Private Investigator does not inform the parent of the
                          legal
                          > ramifications of such an act, the Private Investigator best have his
                          > insurance paid up. Oh wait - insurance doesn't generally cover
                          intentional
                          > legal acts. Hmm.. can you say "second mortgage?" Sure, I knew you
                          could.
                          >
                          > Of course, the Private Investigator COULD tell the parent of the
                          legal
                          > ramifications involved, but then should be continue to "advise and
                          > demonstrate . . . how to install and use a monitoring program"
                          knowing that
                          > the intent is to use it in a manner that violates US or State law,
                          then
                          > that's a little thing we like to call "conspiracy".
                          >
                          > Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

                          The parent can legally monitor the child's Internet communication
                          through vicarious consent, that has been demonstrated. The same law
                          applies to Internet communications as it does to telephone
                          communications, we have all seen the wiretap act applied to Internet
                          communications. No crime is committed when a consultant shows a
                          parent how to LEGALLY monitor their child's Internet communications.
                          Can't make it much more plainer than that.....

                          Tell you what.. Let's reverse this a little. Out of all of your time
                          conducting Internet investigations, recall, and or find me one case
                          where a parent was in fact successfully prosecuted for monitoring
                          thier child's Internet usage?

                          Ask any attorney that specializes in Internet crimes, if any court
                          would convict a parent for taking actions to protect their child from
                          sexual predators on the Internet, to include monitoring that child's
                          communications.

                          Lest we not forget that the child is not subject to the same
                          constitutional protections as the adult is, this has also been upheld
                          in the US Supreme Court. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 642 (1979)
                          (Bellotti II), the Supreme Court said: "We have recognized three
                          reasons justifying the conclusion that the constitutional rights of
                          children cannot be equated with those of adults: the peculiar
                          vulnerability of children; their inability to make critical decisions
                          in an informed, mature manner; and the importance of the parental
                          role in child rearing." That leads, in the Supreme Court's view, to a
                          tradition in the United States of enforcing parental authority unless
                          there are exceptional circumstances.

                          Although this case was concerning abortion, rather than Internet
                          usage, it made clear that the courts recognize that a parent has the
                          right to make decisions for their child, and the court made it clear
                          that the child does not have the same constitutional protections as
                          the adult does.


                          >
                          > As for employee monitoring, as the article you quoted clearly
                          states,
                          > employees are afforded "far less privacy protection..." By no
                          stretch of
                          > the imagination, does that say they are afforded NO privacy
                          protection.
                          > There is no blanket exemption to the ECPA for monitoring employees.
                          >
                          > Also, as a general rule, should an employer be authorized to
                          monitor his/her
                          > employees communications, that monitoring must be restricted solely
                          to
                          > business communications. The monitoring of private communications
                          generally
                          > crosses the line, so assuming no one has invented a psychic computer
                          > monitoring program, how is going to possibly tell the difference
                          between
                          > personal and business communications?
                          >
                          > However, all the extraneous BS aside, I don't think there is a lot
                          of doubt
                          > in anyone's mind the context intended in the original post, and it
                          had
                          > little or nothing to do with children or employees.

                          Oh really? You derive that from this statement: "It has come to my
                          attention that some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor
                          a subjects computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the
                          P.I could also be prosecuted!"? Are you the psychic mind reader that
                          read this poster's mind? If so, you might not be that far off from
                          inventing the "psychic computer". Or... Are you just ASSuming that
                          the poster was excluding children and employer/employee situations
                          from his post?

                          I am not making any ASSumptions on the meaning ot the original post.

                          Furthermore, although it was Vicki you directed the question to, but
                          since we all saw it and it was posted to the group, I think we all
                          have a right to reply, did you not ASK for exceptions and exemptions
                          to the ECPA? Did you ask for exceptions and exemptions excluding
                          those that apply to children and employers? I, I, I, must have missed
                          that part of the question, if you did.....


                          >
                          > Jim
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-
                          list@yahoogroups.com]
                          > On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                          > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:54 PM
                          > To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL
                          >
                          > --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                          > <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jim Parker" <Jim@>
                          wrote:
                          > >
                          > > <<<< Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year
                          > old
                          > > daughter's Internet usage? >>>>
                          > >
                          > > And what if they do? Where would one find the "exception"
                          > or "exemption"
                          > > for teenage children?
                          > >
                          > > <<<< Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees
                          > Internet
                          > > usage on the company computers >>>>
                          > >
                          > > And precisely what would that have to do with a private
                          > investigator, and if
                          > > it did, would that mean that the company employees are
                          > all "subjects" of the
                          > > private investigator's investigation?
                          > >
                          > > Jim
                          >
                          > As I understand the original post: "It has come to my attention
                          that
                          > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                          > computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the P.I could
                          > also be prosecuted!"
                          >
                          > To put my statement into context...
                          >
                          > I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and demonstrate to
                          a
                          > parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
                          > purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. This
                          > does not mean to say that the Private Investigator that consulted
                          to
                          > the parent on how to do this has any right to monitor that child's
                          > Internet usage in any way, only the parent does. However, this does
                          > go to the heart of this statement: "It has come to my attention
                          that
                          > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                          > computer". As that the "subject" can be the child and the P.I. can
                          > be "encouraging" the parent (client?) to use the software described
                          > in this statement.
                          >
                          > The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                          > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                          issues
                          > and/or concerns that the child may have.
                          >
                          > But to answer your question in as much of a straighforward way as I
                          > can while maintaining my right to be lazy enough to copy and paste,
                          > below are the exceptions to the ECPA:
                          >
                          > ----------------------------------------------------------
                          > "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services
                          >
                          > The ECPA prohibits employees of Internet providers from
                          eavesdropping
                          > on subscribers' e-mail or other communication. However, it is not
                          > unlawful for these employees to intercept or disclose communication
                          > in the normal course of employment under two conditions:
                          >
                          > While engaged in the normal required performance of their jobs
                          > For the protection of the rights or property of the provider of the
                          > service the statute further restricts how such exceptions may
                          occur,
                          > specifying that "service observing" and "random monitoring" may
                          only
                          > be carried out for mechanical or quality control checks.
                          >
                          > Exceptions for Employers
                          > In contrast to private home usage of the Internet, Internet
                          > communication in the workplace is given far less privacy protection
                          > under the ECPA. Underpinning this difference are philosophical
                          > assumptions about how much privacy individuals may expect at home
                          as
                          > opposed to what they may normally expect at work. As courts have
                          long
                          > recognized, several factors influence this question: the nature of
                          > the workplace, the relationship between employees and employers,
                          and
                          > the legal concerns of employers are all issues that shape why the
                          > employee has a lesser expectation of privacy at work than at home.
                          >
                          > The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
                          > two main ways:
                          >
                          > In the ordinary course of business
                          > When employees have given consent
                          >
                          > Because employer monitoring of employees has been at the heart of
                          > much LITIGATION, the courts have helped to define what these
                          > conditions mean. In determining whether monitoring is legal in the
                          > ordinary course of business, courts generally examine the reasons
                          > that businesses conduct the monitoring. Generally, workplace
                          > monitoring has been held to be legal under the ECPA where employers
                          > have provided notice of the policy to conduct monitoring and
                          limited
                          > it to monitoring communication that is business-related rather than
                          > personal.
                          >
                          > Private business and public sector employees come under different
                          > laws. While employees may give consent to monitoring, the courts
                          have
                          > also found that "implied consent" may exist. This consent occurs
                          when
                          > employees know or should have known that their employers intercept
                          > their electronic communications. Public sector employers are
                          subject
                          > to a different legal standard. Monitoring in a government workplace
                          > may trigger constitutional issues such as the First Amendment right
                          > to free speech or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an
                          > unreasonable search or seizure.
                          >
                          > Exceptions for Government Authorities
                          > The ECPA governs law enforcement access to private electronic
                          > communication. This statutory privacy is not absolute; however, the
                          > law recognizes that law enforcement must be able to conduct its
                          work.
                          > But the government's power to have access to electronic
                          communication
                          > unlimited. Like protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the
                          > U. S. Constitution, the law spells out limits upon government
                          > intrusion in this area of private life.
                          >
                          > Government agents must take specific steps before intercepting
                          > communication over the Internet, gaining access to stored
                          > communication, or obtaining subscriber information such as account
                          > records and network logs from Internet service providers.
                          Generally,
                          > they must issue subpoenas or seek and execute court orders such as
                          > search warrants. Greater degrees of invasiveness require court
                          > authority. Thus investigators can SUBPOENA basic subscriber
                          > information, but they must obtain a SEARCH WARRANT for EXAMINATION
                          of
                          > the full content of an account.
                          >
                          > An additional exception is created for employees or agents of the
                          > Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They may intercept or
                          > disclose communications in the normal course of employment duties
                          or
                          > in discharging the FCC's federal monitoring responsibilities
                          spelled
                          > out in Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code.
                          >
                          > Additional Exceptions Under the Patriot Act of 2001
                          > Signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 2001, the
                          > Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes new investigatory powers for law
                          > enforcement in response to terrorist attacks upon the nation. Not
                          all
                          > of its powers are limited to use in fighting TERRORISM, however.
                          The
                          > 350-page law amends over one dozen existing statutes, including the
                          > ECPA, for use in investigations of COMPUTER CRIME and other
                          offenses.
                          > Some of the ECPA changes relate to the law's protections for
                          > technologies other than the Internet, but a few circumscribe the
                          > existing privacy protections for Internet communications and usage.
                          > Not all are permanent. Many are subject to sunset provisions
                          provided
                          > by lawmakers out of concern over potential long-term harm to civil
                          > liberties.
                          >
                          > Under the changes, law enforcement agents are able to conduct
                          > investigations with fewer legal hindrances:
                          >
                          > Agents may use the ECPA to compel cable Internet service providers
                          to
                          > disclose customer Internet records without obtaining court orders.
                          > Agents have broader authority to obtain stored voice
                          communications.
                          > This change to the ECPA allows agents to use a search WARRANT for
                          > examining all e-mail as well as any attachments to e-mail that
                          might
                          > contain communication without having to seek further court
                          authority.
                          > This change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                          > Internet service providers may voluntarily make so-
                          called "emergency
                          > disclosures"of information involving information previously
                          > prohibited from disclosure under the ECPA. This information
                          includes
                          > all customer records and customer communications. The disclosures
                          are
                          > permitted in situations involving immediate risk of death or
                          serious
                          > physical injury to any person. However, the law merely permits such
                          > disclosure but does not create an obligation to make them. This
                          > change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                          >
                          > Without altering the ECPA, other provisions of the Patriot Act also
                          > increase police powers that potentially impact Internet privacy.
                          > These include:
                          >
                          > Extending the authority to trace communications on computer
                          networks
                          > in a manner similar to tracing telephone calls, along with giving
                          > federal courts the power to compel assistance from any
                          communication
                          > provider allowing agents to obtain nationwide search warrants for e-
                          > mail without the traditional requirement that the issuing court be
                          > within the relevant JURISDICTION. This change will sunset on
                          December
                          > 31, 2005"
                          > ----------------------------------------------------------
                          >
                          > For full view of the document I quoted from, go to the URL listed
                          > here: http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-
                          privacy
                          > <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy>
                          >
                          > Rick.
                          >
                        • Jim Parker
                          Message 12 of 21 , May 9, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            <<<< How about one even better than that? How about a Presidential Decree
                            that tells ISPS that they MUST encourage parents to monitor thier children's
                            Internet usage? >>>>


                            Ummm... how about you read it again? Absolutely NOWHERE in there does it
                            say anything whatsoever about "monitoring" children. What it RECOMMENDS, is
                            that parents install software that "prohibit[s] access to undesirable
                            sites."

                            That is not the function of spyware. There are several computer programs
                            out there which "prohibit" access to certain kinds of site, along with
                            limiting or prohibiting access to chat programs and others. It's abundantly
                            clear that's what they're talking about. So no; that certainly would not be
                            "as good" as citing the US Supreme Court decision you claim exists (which
                            simply doesn't).


                            By the way, although we have firmly established that your citation is NOT a
                            US Supreme Court decision, you should pay particular attention to the part
                            in the case quoted by the court which said:

                            "We stress that . . . this doctrine should not be interpreted as permitting
                            parents to tape any conversation involving their child simply by invoking
                            the magic words: "I was doing it in his/her best interest" . . .


                            <<<< Vacarious Consent can be used to monitor a child's Internet usage just
                            like it can be to monitor a child's phone conversations. >>>

                            Assuming you mean "Vicarious Consent", tell that to Carmen Dixon of
                            Washington, where the WA Supreme Court held that she violated Washington's
                            privacy law by eavesdropping on her 14 year old daughter's phone
                            conversation. See State of Washington v. Oliver C. Christensen [2004].

                            Or how about Collins v. Collins, 904 S.W.2d 792, 797, where conversations
                            recorded by one parent between their child and the other parent was deemed
                            inadmissible because the parent had not obtained consent prior to the
                            recording of the conversation.

                            Jim



                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                            On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                            Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 11:01 PM
                            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL

                            --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                            <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "Thomas Eskridge" <TOM@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > (The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                            > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                            issues
                            > and/or concerns that the child may have.)
                            >
                            > Citations Please

                            How about one even better than that? How about a Presidential Decree
                            that tells ISPS that they MUST encourage parents to monitor thier
                            children's Internet usage? Would that be as good?

                            "In consideration of decree 1279/97, resolution 1235/98 dated May 22,
                            1998, requires ISPs to insert the following text into invoices sent
                            to users: "The National State does not control or regulate
                            information available on the Internet. Parents are recommended to
                            exercise reasonable control over the content accessed by their
                            children. It is advisable to consult your ISP to obtain suitable
                            advice on programs designed to prohibit access to undesirable sites."

                            This is a mandatory advisory put forth in a Presedential Decree that
                            makes it clear that the parents have a right to control the content
                            that their children can view, and it makes sense that unless the
                            parent knows what their child is viewing, they can't control it...

                            A note: Although the writer talks about e-mail and Internet
                            monitoring, please remember that an e-mail program on a computer is
                            connected to a telephone line, and thus, there is nothing to
                            distinguish a "writing" (as in e-mail), versus an oral conversation.
                            It is all conversation and communication, nonetheless, no matter the
                            actual form.

                            Citations:

                            Newcomb v. Ingle (10th Cir. 1991) 944 F.2d 1534, 1536]

                            Thompson v. Dulaney , 838 F. Supp. 1535 (D. Utah 1993)
                            "The district court in Thompson was the first court to address the
                            authority of a parent to vicariously consent to the taping of phone
                            conversations on behalf of minor children. In Thompson , a mother,
                            who had custody of her three- and five-year-old children, recorded
                            conversations between the children and their father (her ex-husband)
                            from a telephone in her home. 838 F. Supp. at 1537. The court held:
                            [A]s long as the guardian has a good faith basis that it is
                            objectively reasonable for believing that it is necessary to consent
                            on behalf of her minor children to the taping of phone conversations,
                            vicarious consent will be permissible in order for the guardian to
                            fulfill her statutory mandate to act in the best interests of the
                            children.

                            After this review of the relevant case law, we conclude that although
                            the child in this case is older than the children in the cases
                            discussed above in which the doctrine of vicarious consent has been
                            adopted, we agree with the district court's adoption of the doctrine,
                            provided that a clear emphasis is put on the need for
                            the "consenting" parent to demonstrate a good faith, objectively
                            reasonable basis for believing such consent was necessary for the
                            welfare of the child. Accordingly, we adopt the standard set forth by
                            the district court in Thompson and hold that as long as the guardian
                            has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for believing that it
                            is necessary and in the best interest of the child to consent on
                            behalf of his or her minor child to the taping of telephone
                            conversations, the guardian may vicariously consent on behalf of the
                            child to the recording. See Thompson , 838 F. Supp. at 1544. Such
                            vicarious consent will be exempt from liability under Title III,
                            pursuant to the consent exception contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)
                            (d).

                            In a sentence... Vacarious Consent can be used to monitor a child's
                            Internet usage just like it can be to monitor a child's phone
                            conversations.

                            Implied Consent can also be used as an exception...

                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
                            > two main ways:
                            >
                            > In the ordinary course of business
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Simply wrong..what your referring to is the ability of an ISP to
                            open and
                            > view email in the normal course of business in order to ascertain
                            if their
                            > system is working properly..to wit.aol may well in the normal
                            course of
                            > business check every one millionth email.if they happen to view
                            contraband
                            > they can call the cops and the evidence is admissible

                            Tom, there is nothing "wrong" about that statement. Read the heading:
                            "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services". That pretty much
                            states what you just stated in a paragraph, nonetheless it is an
                            exception to the ECPA, and that is what Jim asked for. Furthermore,
                            read the part where I plainly state that these exceptions were a copy
                            and paste.... To apply this, what is to say that a P.I. could not
                            consult to an ISP on how to legally monitor their Internet traffic
                            under the requirements set forth above?. To be correct, the statement
                            does not read "The ISP may open email to see if their system's are
                            working correctly"; instead it states: "The law permits private
                            employers to monitor WORKER e-mail usage in the ordinary course of
                            business"; read that again, it expressly implies that the employer
                            can monitor employee email i.e. WORKER EMAIL. The word "WORKER"
                            pretty much sums it up.... It does not read "CUSTOMER EMAIL", it
                            reads "WORKER EMAIL".

                            >
                            >
                            > Your second permitting way.when the employee gives consent is in
                            fact
                            > correct..
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > I do not think for a moment that the original post had anything to
                            do with a
                            > sniffer device placed on a network to view corporate or government
                            > email/traffic as is often done in corporate America with knowledge
                            of the
                            > employees..the intent of the post was clearly directed to illegal
                            > sniffing..husband and wife kind of stuff...

                            I never saw the words "husband" or "wife" anywhere in the original
                            post. As a matter of fact I did not see any specific examples of what
                            the original poster was referring to.

                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Anyway when your conspire with someone to commit a crime, such as
                            providing
                            > intelligence to rob a bank (or to illegally install a logging
                            device) and
                            > the people you coached to rob the bank, do rob the bank.you are
                            generally
                            > going to be referred to as "the defendant"..from the California
                            penal code..
                            >
                            >
                            > All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it
                            > be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act
                            > constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not
                            > being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all
                            > persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age
                            > of fourteen years, lunatics or idiots, to commit any crime, or who,
                            > by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another
                            > for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by
                            > threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any
                            > crime, are principals in any crime so committed.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer
                            >
                            > High Tech Crime Institute
                            >
                            > 28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204
                            >
                            > Clearwater Florida 33761
                            >
                            > 727-499-7215
                            >
                            > 888-300-9789
                            >
                            > www.gohtci.com
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > _____
                            >
                            > From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                            <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:infoguys-
                            list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:list%40yahoogroups.com> ]
                            > On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                            > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:54 PM
                            > To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>

                            > Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                            > yahoogroups.com, "Jim Parker" <Jim@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > <<<< Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year
                            > old
                            > > daughter's Internet usage? >>>>
                            > >
                            > > And what if they do? Where would one find the "exception"
                            > or "exemption"
                            > > for teenage children?
                            > >
                            > > <<<< Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees
                            > Internet
                            > > usage on the company computers >>>>
                            > >
                            > > And precisely what would that have to do with a private
                            > investigator, and if
                            > > it did, would that mean that the company employees are
                            > all "subjects" of the
                            > > private investigator's investigation?
                            > >
                            > > Jim
                            >
                            > As I understand the original post: "It has come to my attention
                            that
                            > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                            > computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the P.I could
                            > also be prosecuted!"
                            >
                            > To put my statement into context...
                            >
                            > I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and demonstrate to
                            a
                            > parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
                            > purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. This
                            > does not mean to say that the Private Investigator that consulted
                            to
                            > the parent on how to do this has any right to monitor that child's
                            > Internet usage in any way, only the parent does. However, this does
                            > go to the heart of this statement: "It has come to my attention
                            that
                            > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                            > computer". As that the "subject" can be the child and the P.I. can
                            > be "encouraging" the parent (client?) to use the software described
                            > in this statement.
                            >
                            > The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                            > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                            issues
                            > and/or concerns that the child may have.
                            >
                            > But to answer your question in as much of a straighforward way as I
                            > can while maintaining my right to be lazy enough to copy and paste,
                            > below are the exceptions to the ECPA:
                            >
                            > ----------------------------------------------------------
                            > "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services
                            >
                            > The ECPA prohibits employees of Internet providers from
                            eavesdropping
                            > on subscribers' e-mail or other communication. However, it is not
                            > unlawful for these employees to intercept or disclose communication
                            > in the normal course of employment under two conditions:
                            >
                            > While engaged in the normal required performance of their jobs
                            > For the protection of the rights or property of the provider of the
                            > service the statute further restricts how such exceptions may
                            occur,
                            > specifying that "service observing" and "random monitoring" may
                            only
                            > be carried out for mechanical or quality control checks.
                            >
                            > Exceptions for Employers
                            > In contrast to private home usage of the Internet, Internet
                            > communication in the workplace is given far less privacy protection
                            > under the ECPA. Underpinning this difference are philosophical
                            > assumptions about how much privacy individuals may expect at home
                            as
                            > opposed to what they may normally expect at work. As courts have
                            long
                            > recognized, several factors influence this question: the nature of
                            > the workplace, the relationship between employees and employers,
                            and
                            > the legal concerns of employers are all issues that shape why the
                            > employee has a lesser expectation of privacy at work than at home.
                            >
                            > The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
                            > two main ways:
                            >
                            > In the ordinary course of business
                            > When employees have given consent
                            >
                            > Because employer monitoring of employees has been at the heart of
                            > much LITIGATION, the courts have helped to define what these
                            > conditions mean. In determining whether monitoring is legal in the
                            > ordinary course of business, courts generally examine the reasons
                            > that businesses conduct the monitoring. Generally, workplace
                            > monitoring has been held to be legal under the ECPA where employers
                            > have provided notice of the policy to conduct monitoring and
                            limited
                            > it to monitoring communication that is business-related rather than
                            > personal.
                            >
                            > Private business and public sector employees come under different
                            > laws. While employees may give consent to monitoring, the courts
                            have
                            > also found that "implied consent" may exist. This consent occurs
                            when
                            > employees know or should have known that their employers intercept
                            > their electronic communications. Public sector employers are
                            subject
                            > to a different legal standard. Monitoring in a government workplace
                            > may trigger constitutional issues such as the First Amendment right
                            > to free speech or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an
                            > unreasonable search or seizure.
                            >
                            > Exceptions for Government Authorities
                            > The ECPA governs law enforcement access to private electronic
                            > communication. This statutory privacy is not absolute; however, the
                            > law recognizes that law enforcement must be able to conduct its
                            work.
                            > But the government's power to have access to electronic
                            communication
                            > unlimited. Like protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the
                            > U. S. Constitution, the law spells out limits upon government
                            > intrusion in this area of private life.
                            >
                            > Government agents must take specific steps before intercepting
                            > communication over the Internet, gaining access to stored
                            > communication, or obtaining subscriber information such as account
                            > records and network logs from Internet service providers.
                            Generally,
                            > they must issue subpoenas or seek and execute court orders such as
                            > search warrants. Greater degrees of invasiveness require court
                            > authority. Thus investigators can SUBPOENA basic subscriber
                            > information, but they must obtain a SEARCH WARRANT for EXAMINATION
                            of
                            > the full content of an account.
                            >
                            > An additional exception is created for employees or agents of the
                            > Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They may intercept or
                            > disclose communications in the normal course of employment duties
                            or
                            > in discharging the FCC's federal monitoring responsibilities
                            spelled
                            > out in Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code.
                            >
                            > Additional Exceptions Under the Patriot Act of 2001
                            > Signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 2001, the
                            > Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes new investigatory powers for law
                            > enforcement in response to terrorist attacks upon the nation. Not
                            all
                            > of its powers are limited to use in fighting TERRORISM, however.
                            The
                            > 350-page law amends over one dozen existing statutes, including the
                            > ECPA, for use in investigations of COMPUTER CRIME and other
                            offenses.
                            > Some of the ECPA changes relate to the law's protections for
                            > technologies other than the Internet, but a few circumscribe the
                            > existing privacy protections for Internet communications and usage.
                            > Not all are permanent. Many are subject to sunset provisions
                            provided
                            > by lawmakers out of concern over potential long-term harm to civil
                            > liberties.
                            >
                            > Under the changes, law enforcement agents are able to conduct
                            > investigations with fewer legal hindrances:
                            >
                            > Agents may use the ECPA to compel cable Internet service providers
                            to
                            > disclose customer Internet records without obtaining court orders.
                            > Agents have broader authority to obtain stored voice
                            communications.
                            > This change to the ECPA allows agents to use a search WARRANT for
                            > examining all e-mail as well as any attachments to e-mail that
                            might
                            > contain communication without having to seek further court
                            authority.
                            > This change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                            > Internet service providers may voluntarily make so-
                            called "emergency
                            > disclosures"of information involving information previously
                            > prohibited from disclosure under the ECPA. This information
                            includes
                            > all customer records and customer communications. The disclosures
                            are
                            > permitted in situations involving immediate risk of death or
                            serious
                            > physical injury to any person. However, the law merely permits such
                            > disclosure but does not create an obligation to make them. This
                            > change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                            >
                            > Without altering the ECPA, other provisions of the Patriot Act also
                            > increase police powers that potentially impact Internet privacy.
                            > These include:
                            >
                            > Extending the authority to trace communications on computer
                            networks
                            > in a manner similar to tracing telephone calls, along with giving
                            > federal courts the power to compel assistance from any
                            communication
                            > provider allowing agents to obtain nationwide search warrants for e-
                            > mail without the traditional requirement that the issuing court be
                            > within the relevant JURISDICTION. This change will sunset on
                            December
                            > 31, 2005"
                            > ----------------------------------------------------------
                            >
                            > For full view of the document I quoted from, go to the URL listed
                            > here: http://law.enotes
                            > <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy
                            <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy> >
                            > com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy
                            >
                            > Rick.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                          • Jim Parker
                            Oh really? And which US Supreme Court case would that be? Addressed in in previous post to Tom Eskridge..... Two citations actually.... Perhaps
                            Message 13 of 21 , May 9, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              <<<< > Oh really? And which US Supreme Court case would that be?

                              Addressed in in previous post to Tom Eskridge..... Two citations
                              actually.... >>>>

                              Perhaps it would be best if you first learn the difference between a State
                              Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme court, so no, it was not addressed.

                              <<<< The parent can legally monitor the child's Internet communication
                              through vicarious consent, that has been demonstrated. >>>>

                              No, a parent can legally monitor their child's communications ONLY IF
                              CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET (they meet with the terms of the Vicarious
                              Consent Doctrine). In no way does this give parents blanket authority to
                              monitor their children's communications. You will see from my earlier post
                              that the court made this abundantly clear.


                              <<<< recall, and or find me one case where a parent was in fact
                              successfully prosecuted for monitoring thier child's Internet usage? >>>

                              I don't have to; I already cited you two cases where the court found that
                              the monitoring of a child's communications by the parent was deemed ILLEGAL.
                              Whether anyone has been successfully (or otherwise) prosecuted is
                              irrelevant. We're talking about what may be legal, and what may be illegal.


                              <<<< did you not ASK for exceptions and exemptions to the ECPA? Did you ask
                              for exceptions and exemptions excluding
                              those that apply to children and employers? I, I, I, must have missed that
                              part of the question, if you did..... >>>>

                              No no, you haven't missed it at all. The problem is, that you haven't
                              provided one single "exemption" that can be found in the ECPA. Not one,
                              which as you noted, was what I specifically asked for. The reason you
                              haven't, would be because no such exemption exists. Unless, of course,
                              you'd like to quote me the section of the ECPA where it specifically exempts
                              employees and children.

                              Jim


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                              On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                              Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:24 AM
                              To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL

                              --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                              <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jim Parker" <Jim@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > <<<< The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation
                              to
                              > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                              issues
                              > and/or concerns that the child may have. >>>>
                              >
                              > Oh really? And which US Supreme Court case would that be?

                              Addressed in in previous post to Tom Eskridge..... Two citations
                              actually....

                              >
                              > <<<< I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and
                              demonstrate to a
                              > parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
                              > purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. >>>>
                              >
                              > And if the Private Investigator does not inform the parent of the
                              legal
                              > ramifications of such an act, the Private Investigator best have his
                              > insurance paid up. Oh wait - insurance doesn't generally cover
                              intentional
                              > legal acts. Hmm.. can you say "second mortgage?" Sure, I knew you
                              could.
                              >
                              > Of course, the Private Investigator COULD tell the parent of the
                              legal
                              > ramifications involved, but then should be continue to "advise and
                              > demonstrate . . . how to install and use a monitoring program"
                              knowing that
                              > the intent is to use it in a manner that violates US or State law,
                              then
                              > that's a little thing we like to call "conspiracy".
                              >
                              > Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

                              The parent can legally monitor the child's Internet communication
                              through vicarious consent, that has been demonstrated. The same law
                              applies to Internet communications as it does to telephone
                              communications, we have all seen the wiretap act applied to Internet
                              communications. No crime is committed when a consultant shows a
                              parent how to LEGALLY monitor their child's Internet communications.
                              Can't make it much more plainer than that.....

                              Tell you what.. Let's reverse this a little. Out of all of your time
                              conducting Internet investigations, recall, and or find me one case
                              where a parent was in fact successfully prosecuted for monitoring
                              thier child's Internet usage?

                              Ask any attorney that specializes in Internet crimes, if any court
                              would convict a parent for taking actions to protect their child from
                              sexual predators on the Internet, to include monitoring that child's
                              communications.

                              Lest we not forget that the child is not subject to the same
                              constitutional protections as the adult is, this has also been upheld
                              in the US Supreme Court. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 642 (1979)
                              (Bellotti II), the Supreme Court said: "We have recognized three
                              reasons justifying the conclusion that the constitutional rights of
                              children cannot be equated with those of adults: the peculiar
                              vulnerability of children; their inability to make critical decisions
                              in an informed, mature manner; and the importance of the parental
                              role in child rearing." That leads, in the Supreme Court's view, to a
                              tradition in the United States of enforcing parental authority unless
                              there are exceptional circumstances.

                              Although this case was concerning abortion, rather than Internet
                              usage, it made clear that the courts recognize that a parent has the
                              right to make decisions for their child, and the court made it clear
                              that the child does not have the same constitutional protections as
                              the adult does.

                              >
                              > As for employee monitoring, as the article you quoted clearly
                              states,
                              > employees are afforded "far less privacy protection..." By no
                              stretch of
                              > the imagination, does that say they are afforded NO privacy
                              protection.
                              > There is no blanket exemption to the ECPA for monitoring employees.
                              >
                              > Also, as a general rule, should an employer be authorized to
                              monitor his/her
                              > employees communications, that monitoring must be restricted solely
                              to
                              > business communications. The monitoring of private communications
                              generally
                              > crosses the line, so assuming no one has invented a psychic computer
                              > monitoring program, how is going to possibly tell the difference
                              between
                              > personal and business communications?
                              >
                              > However, all the extraneous BS aside, I don't think there is a lot
                              of doubt
                              > in anyone's mind the context intended in the original post, and it
                              had
                              > little or nothing to do with children or employees.

                              Oh really? You derive that from this statement: "It has come to my
                              attention that some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor
                              a subjects computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the
                              P.I could also be prosecuted!"? Are you the psychic mind reader that
                              read this poster's mind? If so, you might not be that far off from
                              inventing the "psychic computer". Or... Are you just ASSuming that
                              the poster was excluding children and employer/employee situations
                              from his post?

                              I am not making any ASSumptions on the meaning ot the original post.

                              Furthermore, although it was Vicki you directed the question to, but
                              since we all saw it and it was posted to the group, I think we all
                              have a right to reply, did you not ASK for exceptions and exemptions
                              to the ECPA? Did you ask for exceptions and exemptions excluding
                              those that apply to children and employers? I, I, I, must have missed
                              that part of the question, if you did.....

                              >
                              > Jim
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                              <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:infoguys-
                              list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:list%40yahoogroups.com> ]
                              > On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                              > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:54 PM
                              > To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>

                              > Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL
                              >
                              > --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                              <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                              > <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jim Parker" <Jim@>
                              wrote:
                              > >
                              > > <<<< Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year
                              > old
                              > > daughter's Internet usage? >>>>
                              > >
                              > > And what if they do? Where would one find the "exception"
                              > or "exemption"
                              > > for teenage children?
                              > >
                              > > <<<< Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees
                              > Internet
                              > > usage on the company computers >>>>
                              > >
                              > > And precisely what would that have to do with a private
                              > investigator, and if
                              > > it did, would that mean that the company employees are
                              > all "subjects" of the
                              > > private investigator's investigation?
                              > >
                              > > Jim
                              >
                              > As I understand the original post: "It has come to my attention
                              that
                              > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                              > computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the P.I could
                              > also be prosecuted!"
                              >
                              > To put my statement into context...
                              >
                              > I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and demonstrate to
                              a
                              > parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
                              > purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. This
                              > does not mean to say that the Private Investigator that consulted
                              to
                              > the parent on how to do this has any right to monitor that child's
                              > Internet usage in any way, only the parent does. However, this does
                              > go to the heart of this statement: "It has come to my attention
                              that
                              > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                              > computer". As that the "subject" can be the child and the P.I. can
                              > be "encouraging" the parent (client?) to use the software described
                              > in this statement.
                              >
                              > The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                              > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                              issues
                              > and/or concerns that the child may have.
                              >
                              > But to answer your question in as much of a straighforward way as I
                              > can while maintaining my right to be lazy enough to copy and paste,
                              > below are the exceptions to the ECPA:
                              >
                              > ----------------------------------------------------------
                              > "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services
                              >
                              > The ECPA prohibits employees of Internet providers from
                              eavesdropping
                              > on subscribers' e-mail or other communication. However, it is not
                              > unlawful for these employees to intercept or disclose communication
                              > in the normal course of employment under two conditions:
                              >
                              > While engaged in the normal required performance of their jobs
                              > For the protection of the rights or property of the provider of the
                              > service the statute further restricts how such exceptions may
                              occur,
                              > specifying that "service observing" and "random monitoring" may
                              only
                              > be carried out for mechanical or quality control checks.
                              >
                              > Exceptions for Employers
                              > In contrast to private home usage of the Internet, Internet
                              > communication in the workplace is given far less privacy protection
                              > under the ECPA. Underpinning this difference are philosophical
                              > assumptions about how much privacy individuals may expect at home
                              as
                              > opposed to what they may normally expect at work. As courts have
                              long
                              > recognized, several factors influence this question: the nature of
                              > the workplace, the relationship between employees and employers,
                              and
                              > the legal concerns of employers are all issues that shape why the
                              > employee has a lesser expectation of privacy at work than at home.
                              >
                              > The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
                              > two main ways:
                              >
                              > In the ordinary course of business
                              > When employees have given consent
                              >
                              > Because employer monitoring of employees has been at the heart of
                              > much LITIGATION, the courts have helped to define what these
                              > conditions mean. In determining whether monitoring is legal in the
                              > ordinary course of business, courts generally examine the reasons
                              > that businesses conduct the monitoring. Generally, workplace
                              > monitoring has been held to be legal under the ECPA where employers
                              > have provided notice of the policy to conduct monitoring and
                              limited
                              > it to monitoring communication that is business-related rather than
                              > personal.
                              >
                              > Private business and public sector employees come under different
                              > laws. While employees may give consent to monitoring, the courts
                              have
                              > also found that "implied consent" may exist. This consent occurs
                              when
                              > employees know or should have known that their employers intercept
                              > their electronic communications. Public sector employers are
                              subject
                              > to a different legal standard. Monitoring in a government workplace
                              > may trigger constitutional issues such as the First Amendment right
                              > to free speech or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an
                              > unreasonable search or seizure.
                              >
                              > Exceptions for Government Authorities
                              > The ECPA governs law enforcement access to private electronic
                              > communication. This statutory privacy is not absolute; however, the
                              > law recognizes that law enforcement must be able to conduct its
                              work.
                              > But the government's power to have access to electronic
                              communication
                              > unlimited. Like protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the
                              > U. S. Constitution, the law spells out limits upon government
                              > intrusion in this area of private life.
                              >
                              > Government agents must take specific steps before intercepting
                              > communication over the Internet, gaining access to stored
                              > communication, or obtaining subscriber information such as account
                              > records and network logs from Internet service providers.
                              Generally,
                              > they must issue subpoenas or seek and execute court orders such as
                              > search warrants. Greater degrees of invasiveness require court
                              > authority. Thus investigators can SUBPOENA basic subscriber
                              > information, but they must obtain a SEARCH WARRANT for EXAMINATION
                              of
                              > the full content of an account.
                              >
                              > An additional exception is created for employees or agents of the
                              > Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They may intercept or
                              > disclose communications in the normal course of employment duties
                              or
                              > in discharging the FCC's federal monitoring responsibilities
                              spelled
                              > out in Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code.
                              >
                              > Additional Exceptions Under the Patriot Act of 2001
                              > Signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 2001, the
                              > Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes new investigatory powers for law
                              > enforcement in response to terrorist attacks upon the nation. Not
                              all
                              > of its powers are limited to use in fighting TERRORISM, however.
                              The
                              > 350-page law amends over one dozen existing statutes, including the
                              > ECPA, for use in investigations of COMPUTER CRIME and other
                              offenses.
                              > Some of the ECPA changes relate to the law's protections for
                              > technologies other than the Internet, but a few circumscribe the
                              > existing privacy protections for Internet communications and usage.
                              > Not all are permanent. Many are subject to sunset provisions
                              provided
                              > by lawmakers out of concern over potential long-term harm to civil
                              > liberties.
                              >
                              > Under the changes, law enforcement agents are able to conduct
                              > investigations with fewer legal hindrances:
                              >
                              > Agents may use the ECPA to compel cable Internet service providers
                              to
                              > disclose customer Internet records without obtaining court orders.
                              > Agents have broader authority to obtain stored voice
                              communications.
                              > This change to the ECPA allows agents to use a search WARRANT for
                              > examining all e-mail as well as any attachments to e-mail that
                              might
                              > contain communication without having to seek further court
                              authority.
                              > This change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                              > Internet service providers may voluntarily make so-
                              called "emergency
                              > disclosures"of information involving information previously
                              > prohibited from disclosure under the ECPA. This information
                              includes
                              > all customer records and customer communications. The disclosures
                              are
                              > permitted in situations involving immediate risk of death or
                              serious
                              > physical injury to any person. However, the law merely permits such
                              > disclosure but does not create an obligation to make them. This
                              > change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                              >
                              > Without altering the ECPA, other provisions of the Patriot Act also
                              > increase police powers that potentially impact Internet privacy.
                              > These include:
                              >
                              > Extending the authority to trace communications on computer
                              networks
                              > in a manner similar to tracing telephone calls, along with giving
                              > federal courts the power to compel assistance from any
                              communication
                              > provider allowing agents to obtain nationwide search warrants for e-
                              > mail without the traditional requirement that the issuing court be
                              > within the relevant JURISDICTION. This change will sunset on
                              December
                              > 31, 2005"
                              > ----------------------------------------------------------
                              >
                              > For full view of the document I quoted from, go to the URL listed
                              > here: http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-
                              <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet->
                              privacy
                              > <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy
                              <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy> >
                              >
                              > Rick.
                              >
                            • SPINTELWEB@aol.com
                              I don t just think Jim is correct, I know he is. He knows the web to well and being an expert that he is sometimes he likes to show off a little... Cheers,
                              Message 14 of 21 , May 9, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I don't just think Jim is correct, I know he is. He knows the web to well
                                and being an expert that he is sometimes he likes to show off a little...

                                Cheers,

                                Stephen

                                In a message dated 5/10/2007 12:36:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                                Jim@... writes:

                                <<<< How about one even better than that? How about a Presidential Decree
                                that tells ISPS that they MUST encourage parents to monitor thier children's
                                Internet usage? >>>>


                                Ummm... how about you read it again? Absolutely NOWHERE in there does it
                                say anything whatsoever about "monitoring" children. What it RECOMMENDS, is
                                that parents install software that "prohibit[s] access to undesirable
                                sites."

                                That is not the function of spyware. There are several computer programs
                                out there which "prohibit" access to certain kinds of site, along with
                                limiting or prohibiting access to chat programs and others. It's abundantly
                                clear that's what they're talking about. So no; that certainly would not be
                                "as good" as citing the US Supreme Court decision you claim exists (which
                                simply doesn't).


                                By the way, although we have firmly established that your citation is NOT a
                                US Supreme Court decision, you should pay particular attention to the part
                                in the case quoted by the court which said:

                                "We stress that . . . this doctrine should not be interpreted as permitting
                                parents to tape any conversation involving their child simply by invoking
                                the magic words: "I was doing it in his/her best interest" . . .


                                <<<< Vacarious Consent can be used to monitor a child's Internet usage just
                                like it can be to monitor a child's phone conversations. >>>

                                Assuming you mean "Vicarious Consent", tell that to Carmen Dixon of
                                Washington, where the WA Supreme Court held that she violated Washington's
                                privacy law by eavesdropping on her 14 year old daughter's phone
                                conversation. See State of Washington v. Oliver C. Christensen [2004].

                                Or how about Collins v. Collins, 904 S.W.2d 792, 797, where conversations
                                recorded by one parent between their child and the other parent was deemed
                                inadmissible because the parent had not obtained consent prior to the
                                recording of the conversation.

                                Jim



                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                                On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                                Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 11:01 PM
                                To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL

                                --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "Thomas Eskridge" <TOM@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > (The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                                > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                                issues
                                > and/or concerns that the child may have.)
                                >
                                > Citations Please

                                How about one even better than that? How about a Presidential Decree
                                that tells ISPS that they MUST encourage parents to monitor thier
                                children's Internet usage? Would that be as good?

                                "In consideration of decree 1279/97, resolution 1235/98 dated May 22,
                                1998, requires ISPs to insert the following text into invoices sent
                                to users: "The National State does not control or regulate
                                information available on the Internet. Parents are recommended to
                                exercise reasonable control over the content accessed by their
                                children. It is advisable to consult your ISP to obtain suitable
                                advice on programs designed to prohibit access to undesirable sites."

                                This is a mandatory advisory put forth in a Presedential Decree that
                                makes it clear that the parents have a right to control the content
                                that their children can view, and it makes sense that unless the
                                parent knows what their child is viewing, they can't control it...

                                A note: Although the writer talks about e-mail and Internet
                                monitoring, please remember that an e-mail program on a computer is
                                connected to a telephone line, and thus, there is nothing to
                                distinguish a "writing" (as in e-mail), versus an oral conversation.
                                It is all conversation and communication, nonetheless, no matter the
                                actual form.

                                Citations:

                                Newcomb v. Ingle (10th Cir. 1991) 944 F.2d 1534, 1536]

                                Thompson v. Dulaney , 838 F. Supp. 1535 (D. Utah 1993)
                                "The district court in Thompson was the first court to address the
                                authority of a parent to vicariously consent to the taping of phone
                                conversations on behalf of minor children. In Thompson , a mother,
                                who had custody of her three- and five-year-old children, recorded
                                conversations between the children and their father (her ex-husband)
                                from a telephone in her home. 838 F. Supp. at 1537. The court held:
                                [A]s long as the guardian has a good faith basis that it is
                                objectively reasonable for believing that it is necessary to consent
                                on behalf of her minor children to the taping of phone conversations,
                                vicarious consent will be permissible in order for the guardian to
                                fulfill her statutory mandate to act in the best interests of the
                                children.

                                After this review of the relevant case law, we conclude that although
                                the child in this case is older than the children in the cases
                                discussed above in which the doctrine of vicarious consent has been
                                adopted, we agree with the district court's adoption of the doctrine,
                                provided that a clear emphasis is put on the need for
                                the "consenting" parent to demonstrate a good faith, objectively
                                reasonable basis for believing such consent was necessary for the
                                welfare of the child. Accordingly, we adopt the standard set forth by
                                the district court in Thompson and hold that as long as the guardian
                                has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for believing that it
                                is necessary and in the best interest of the child to consent on
                                behalf of his or her minor child to the taping of telephone
                                conversations, the guardian may vicariously consent on behalf of the
                                child to the recording. See Thompson , 838 F. Supp. at 1544. Such
                                vicarious consent will be exempt from liability under Title III,
                                pursuant to the consent exception contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)
                                (d).

                                In a sentence... Vacarious Consent can be used to monitor a child's
                                Internet usage just like it can be to monitor a child's phone
                                conversations.

                                Implied Consent can also be used as an exception...

                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
                                > two main ways:
                                >
                                > In the ordinary course of business
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Simply wrong..what your referring to is the ability of an ISP to
                                open and
                                > view email in the normal course of business in order to ascertain
                                if their
                                > system is working properly..to wit.aol may well in the normal
                                course of
                                > business check every one millionth email.if they happen to view
                                contraband
                                > they can call the cops and the evidence is admissible

                                Tom, there is nothing "wrong" about that statement. Read the heading:
                                "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services". That pretty much
                                states what you just stated in a paragraph, nonetheless it is an
                                exception to the ECPA, and that is what Jim asked for. Furthermore,
                                read the part where I plainly state that these exceptions were a copy
                                and paste.... To apply this, what is to say that a P.I. could not
                                consult to an ISP on how to legally monitor their Internet traffic
                                under the requirements set forth above?. To be correct, the statement
                                does not read "The ISP may open email to see if their system's are
                                working correctly"; instead it states: "The law permits private
                                employers to monitor WORKER e-mail usage in the ordinary course of
                                business"; read that again, it expressly implies that the employer
                                can monitor employee email i.e. WORKER EMAIL. The word "WORKER"
                                pretty much sums it up.... It does not read "CUSTOMER EMAIL", it
                                reads "WORKER EMAIL".

                                >
                                >
                                > Your second permitting way.when the employee gives consent is in
                                fact
                                > correct..
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > I do not think for a moment that the original post had anything to
                                do with a
                                > sniffer device placed on a network to view corporate or government
                                > email/traffic as is often done in corporate America with knowledge
                                of the
                                > employees..the intent of the post was clearly directed to illegal
                                > sniffing..husband and wife kind of stuff...

                                I never saw the words "husband" or "wife" anywhere in the original
                                post. As a matter of fact I did not see any specific examples of what
                                the original poster was referring to.

                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Anyway when your conspire with someone to commit a crime, such as
                                providing
                                > intelligence to rob a bank (or to illegally install a logging
                                device) and
                                > the people you coached to rob the bank, do rob the bank.you are
                                generally
                                > going to be referred to as "the defendant"..from the California
                                penal code..
                                >
                                >
                                > All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it
                                > be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act
                                > constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not
                                > being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all
                                > persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age
                                > of fourteen years, lunatics or idiots, to commit any crime, or who,
                                > by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another
                                > for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by
                                > threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any
                                > crime, are principals in any crime so committed.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer
                                >
                                > High Tech Crime Institute
                                >
                                > 28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204
                                >
                                > Clearwater Florida 33761
                                >
                                > 727-499-7215
                                >
                                > 888-300-9789
                                >
                                > www.gohtci.com
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > _____
                                >
                                > From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:infoguys-
                                list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:list%40yahoogroups.com> ]
                                > On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                                > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:54 PM
                                > To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>

                                > Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                                > yahoogroups.com, "Jim Parker" <Jim@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > <<<< Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen year
                                > old
                                > > daughter's Internet usage? >>>>
                                > >
                                > > And what if they do? Where would one find the "exception"
                                > or "exemption"
                                > > for teenage children?
                                > >
                                > > <<<< Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their employees
                                > Internet
                                > > usage on the company computers >>>>
                                > >
                                > > And precisely what would that have to do with a private
                                > investigator, and if
                                > > it did, would that mean that the company employees are
                                > all "subjects" of the
                                > > private investigator's investigation?
                                > >
                                > > Jim
                                >
                                > As I understand the original post: "It has come to my attention
                                that
                                > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                                > computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the P.I could
                                > also be prosecuted!"
                                >
                                > To put my statement into context...
                                >
                                > I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and demonstrate to
                                a
                                > parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the express
                                > purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet.. This
                                > does not mean to say that the Private Investigator that consulted
                                to
                                > the parent on how to do this has any right to monitor that child's
                                > Internet usage in any way, only the parent does. However, this does
                                > go to the heart of this statement: "It has come to my attention
                                that
                                > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                                > computer". As that the "subject" can be the child and the P.I. can
                                > be "encouraging" the parent (client?) to use the software described
                                > in this statement.
                                >
                                > The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                                > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                                issues
                                > and/or concerns that the child may have.
                                >
                                > But to answer your question in as much of a straighforward way as I
                                > can while maintaining my right to be lazy enough to copy and paste,
                                > below are the exceptions to the ECPA:
                                >
                                > ----------------------------------------------------------
                                > "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services
                                >
                                > The ECPA prohibits employees of Internet providers from
                                eavesdropping
                                > on subscribers' e-mail or other communication. However, it is not
                                > unlawful for these employees to intercept or disclose communication
                                > in the normal course of employment under two conditions:
                                >
                                > While engaged in the normal required performance of their jobs
                                > For the protection of the rights or property of the provider of the
                                > service the statute further restricts how such exceptions may
                                occur,
                                > specifying that "service observing" and "random monitoring" may
                                only
                                > be carried out for mechanical or quality control checks.
                                >
                                > Exceptions for Employers
                                > In contrast to private home usage of the Internet, Internet
                                > communication in the workplace is given far less privacy protection
                                > under the ECPA. Underpinning this difference are philosophical
                                > assumptions about how much privacy individuals may expect at home
                                as
                                > opposed to what they may normally expect at work. As courts have
                                long
                                > recognized, several factors influence this question: the nature of
                                > the workplace, the relationship between employees and employers,
                                and
                                > the legal concerns of employers are all issues that shape why the
                                > employee has a lesser expectation of privacy at work than at home.
                                >
                                > The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage in
                                > two main ways:
                                >
                                > In the ordinary course of business
                                > When employees have given consent
                                >
                                > Because employer monitoring of employees has been at the heart of
                                > much LITIGATION, the courts have helped to define what these
                                > conditions mean. In determining whether monitoring is legal in the
                                > ordinary course of business, courts generally examine the reasons
                                > that businesses conduct the monitoring. Generally, workplace
                                > monitoring has been held to be legal under the ECPA where employers
                                > have provided notice of the policy to conduct monitoring and
                                limited
                                > it to monitoring communication that is business-related rather than
                                > personal.
                                >
                                > Private business and public sector employees come under different
                                > laws. While employees may give consent to monitoring, the courts
                                have
                                > also found that "implied consent" may exist. This consent occurs
                                when
                                > employees know or should have known that their employers intercept
                                > their electronic communications. Public sector employers are
                                subject
                                > to a different legal standard. Monitoring in a government workplace
                                > may trigger constitutional issues such as the First Amendment right
                                > to free speech or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an
                                > unreasonable search or seizure.
                                >
                                > Exceptions for Government Authorities
                                > The ECPA governs law enforcement access to private electronic
                                > communication. This statutory privacy is not absolute; however, the
                                > law recognizes that law enforcement must be able to conduct its
                                work.
                                > But the government's power to have access to electronic
                                communication
                                > unlimited. Like protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the
                                > U. S. Constitution, the law spells out limits upon government
                                > intrusion in this area of private life.
                                >
                                > Government agents must take specific steps before intercepting
                                > communication over the Internet, gaining access to stored
                                > communication, or obtaining subscriber information such as account
                                > records and network logs from Internet service providers.
                                Generally,
                                > they must issue subpoenas or seek and execute court orders such as
                                > search warrants. Greater degrees of invasiveness require court
                                > authority. Thus investigators can SUBPOENA basic subscriber
                                > information, but they must obtain a SEARCH WARRANT for EXAMINATION
                                of
                                > the full content of an account.
                                >
                                > An additional exception is created for employees or agents of the
                                > Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They may intercept or
                                > disclose communications in the normal course of employment duties
                                or
                                > in discharging the FCC's federal monitoring responsibilities
                                spelled
                                > out in Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code.
                                >
                                > Additional Exceptions Under the Patriot Act of 2001
                                > Signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 2001, the
                                > Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes new investigatory powers for law
                                > enforcement in response to terrorist attacks upon the nation. Not
                                all
                                > of its powers are limited to use in fighting TERRORISM, however.
                                The
                                > 350-page law amends over one dozen existing statutes, including the
                                > ECPA, for use in investigations of COMPUTER CRIME and other
                                offenses.
                                > Some of the ECPA changes relate to the law's protections for
                                > technologies other than the Internet, but a few circumscribe the
                                > existing privacy protections for Internet communications and usage.
                                > Not all are permanent. Many are subject to sunset provisions
                                provided
                                > by lawmakers out of concern over potential long-term harm to civil
                                > liberties.
                                >
                                > Under the changes, law enforcement agents are able to conduct
                                > investigations with fewer legal hindrances:
                                >
                                > Agents may use the ECPA to compel cable Internet service providers
                                to
                                > disclose customer Internet records without obtaining court orders.
                                > Agents have broader authority to obtain stored voice
                                communications.
                                > This change to the ECPA allows agents to use a search WARRANT for
                                > examining all e-mail as well as any attachments to e-mail that
                                might
                                > contain communication without having to seek further court
                                authority.
                                > This change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                                > Internet service providers may voluntarily make so-
                                called "emergency
                                > disclosures"of information involving information previously
                                > prohibited from disclosure under the ECPA. This information
                                includes
                                > all customer records and customer communications. The disclosures
                                are
                                > permitted in situations involving immediate risk of death or
                                serious
                                > physical injury to any person. However, the law merely permits such
                                > disclosure but does not create an obligation to make them. This
                                > change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                                >
                                > Without altering the ECPA, other provisions of the Patriot Act also
                                > increase police powers that potentially impact Internet privacy.
                                > These include:
                                >
                                > Extending the authority to trace communications on computer
                                networks
                                > in a manner similar to tracing telephone calls, along with giving
                                > federal courts the power to compel assistance from any
                                communication
                                > provider allowing agents to obtain nationwide search warrants for e-
                                > mail without the traditional requirement that the issuing court be
                                > within the relevant JURISDICTION. This change will sunset on
                                December
                                > 31, 2005"
                                > ----------------------------------------------------------
                                >
                                > For full view of the document I quoted from, go to the URL listed
                                > here: http://law.enotes
                                > <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy
                                <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy> >
                                > com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy
                                >
                                > Rick.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >







                                <hr>
                                To subscribe, send an empty message to
                                _infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com) <br/>
                                To unsubscribe, send a message to
                                _infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com) <br/>
                                <hr>
                                Yahoo! Groups Links









                                ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Ricky Gurley
                                ... a State ... addressed. Yep. You got me there.. That ll teach me to be doing 3 or 4 things at once while arguing with you. Although I was updating a Linux
                                Message 15 of 21 , May 9, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Parker" <Jim@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > <<<< > Oh really? And which US Supreme Court case would that be?
                                  >
                                  > Addressed in in previous post to Tom Eskridge..... Two citations
                                  > actually.... >>>>
                                  >
                                  > Perhaps it would be best if you first learn the difference between
                                  a State
                                  > Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme court, so no, it was not
                                  addressed.

                                  Yep. You got me there.. That'll teach me to be doing 3 or 4 things at
                                  once while arguing with you. Although I was updating a Linux Server,
                                  and finishing up with getting Linux installed on a laptop, I make no
                                  excuses. I was happily copying and pasting away, with my head right
                                  straight up my arse, not paying attention. AND; mispelling the
                                  word "vicarious" all the while.


                                  >
                                  > <<<< The parent can legally monitor the child's Internet
                                  communication
                                  > through vicarious consent, that has been demonstrated. >>>>
                                  >
                                  > No, a parent can legally monitor their child's communications ONLY
                                  IF
                                  > CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET (they meet with the terms of the
                                  Vicarious
                                  > Consent Doctrine). In no way does this give parents blanket
                                  authority to
                                  > monitor their children's communications. You will see from my
                                  earlier post
                                  > that the court made this abundantly clear.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > <<<< recall, and or find me one case where a parent was in fact
                                  > successfully prosecuted for monitoring thier child's Internet
                                  usage? >>>
                                  >
                                  > I don't have to; I already cited you two cases where the court
                                  found that
                                  > the monitoring of a child's communications by the parent was deemed
                                  ILLEGAL.
                                  > Whether anyone has been successfully (or otherwise) prosecuted is
                                  > irrelevant. We're talking about what may be legal, and what may be
                                  illegal.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > <<<< did you not ASK for exceptions and exemptions to the ECPA?
                                  Did you ask
                                  > for exceptions and exemptions excluding
                                  > those that apply to children and employers? I, I, I, must have
                                  missed that
                                  > part of the question, if you did..... >>>>
                                  >
                                  > No no, you haven't missed it at all. The problem is, that you
                                  haven't
                                  > provided one single "exemption" that can be found in the ECPA. Not
                                  one,
                                  > which as you noted, was what I specifically asked for. The reason
                                  you
                                  > haven't, would be because no such exemption exists. Unless, of
                                  course,
                                  > you'd like to quote me the section of the ECPA where it
                                  specifically exempts
                                  > employees and children.

                                  I hate to mention that there seems to be one clear exemption, because
                                  it is pretty well granted that everyone knows this, but there does
                                  seem to be a Law Enforcement/Government and Intelligence Gathering
                                  exemption....

                                  Well, I am going to "get while the getting is good", and go back to
                                  my work.... LMAO!


                                  Rick.
                                  >
                                  > Jim
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-
                                  list@yahoogroups.com]
                                  > On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                                  > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:24 AM
                                  > To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL
                                  >
                                  > --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                  > <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jim Parker" <Jim@>
                                  wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > <<<< The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation
                                  > to
                                  > > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                                  > issues
                                  > > and/or concerns that the child may have. >>>>
                                  > >
                                  > > Oh really? And which US Supreme Court case would that be?
                                  >
                                  > Addressed in in previous post to Tom Eskridge..... Two citations
                                  > actually....
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > > <<<< I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and
                                  > demonstrate to a
                                  > > parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the
                                  express
                                  > > purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet..
                                  >>>>
                                  > >
                                  > > And if the Private Investigator does not inform the parent of the
                                  > legal
                                  > > ramifications of such an act, the Private Investigator best have
                                  his
                                  > > insurance paid up. Oh wait - insurance doesn't generally cover
                                  > intentional
                                  > > legal acts. Hmm.. can you say "second mortgage?" Sure, I knew you
                                  > could.
                                  > >
                                  > > Of course, the Private Investigator COULD tell the parent of the
                                  > legal
                                  > > ramifications involved, but then should be continue to "advise and
                                  > > demonstrate . . . how to install and use a monitoring program"
                                  > knowing that
                                  > > the intent is to use it in a manner that violates US or State
                                  law,
                                  > then
                                  > > that's a little thing we like to call "conspiracy".
                                  > >
                                  > > Damned if you do; damned if you don't.
                                  >
                                  > The parent can legally monitor the child's Internet communication
                                  > through vicarious consent, that has been demonstrated. The same law
                                  > applies to Internet communications as it does to telephone
                                  > communications, we have all seen the wiretap act applied to
                                  Internet
                                  > communications. No crime is committed when a consultant shows a
                                  > parent how to LEGALLY monitor their child's Internet
                                  communications.
                                  > Can't make it much more plainer than that.....
                                  >
                                  > Tell you what.. Let's reverse this a little. Out of all of your
                                  time
                                  > conducting Internet investigations, recall, and or find me one case
                                  > where a parent was in fact successfully prosecuted for monitoring
                                  > thier child's Internet usage?
                                  >
                                  > Ask any attorney that specializes in Internet crimes, if any court
                                  > would convict a parent for taking actions to protect their child
                                  from
                                  > sexual predators on the Internet, to include monitoring that
                                  child's
                                  > communications.
                                  >
                                  > Lest we not forget that the child is not subject to the same
                                  > constitutional protections as the adult is, this has also been
                                  upheld
                                  > in the US Supreme Court. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 642
                                  (1979)
                                  > (Bellotti II), the Supreme Court said: "We have recognized three
                                  > reasons justifying the conclusion that the constitutional rights of
                                  > children cannot be equated with those of adults: the peculiar
                                  > vulnerability of children; their inability to make critical
                                  decisions
                                  > in an informed, mature manner; and the importance of the parental
                                  > role in child rearing." That leads, in the Supreme Court's view, to
                                  a
                                  > tradition in the United States of enforcing parental authority
                                  unless
                                  > there are exceptional circumstances.
                                  >
                                  > Although this case was concerning abortion, rather than Internet
                                  > usage, it made clear that the courts recognize that a parent has
                                  the
                                  > right to make decisions for their child, and the court made it
                                  clear
                                  > that the child does not have the same constitutional protections as
                                  > the adult does.
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > > As for employee monitoring, as the article you quoted clearly
                                  > states,
                                  > > employees are afforded "far less privacy protection..." By no
                                  > stretch of
                                  > > the imagination, does that say they are afforded NO privacy
                                  > protection.
                                  > > There is no blanket exemption to the ECPA for monitoring
                                  employees.
                                  > >
                                  > > Also, as a general rule, should an employer be authorized to
                                  > monitor his/her
                                  > > employees communications, that monitoring must be restricted
                                  solely
                                  > to
                                  > > business communications. The monitoring of private communications
                                  > generally
                                  > > crosses the line, so assuming no one has invented a psychic
                                  computer
                                  > > monitoring program, how is going to possibly tell the difference
                                  > between
                                  > > personal and business communications?
                                  > >
                                  > > However, all the extraneous BS aside, I don't think there is a
                                  lot
                                  > of doubt
                                  > > in anyone's mind the context intended in the original post, and
                                  it
                                  > had
                                  > > little or nothing to do with children or employees.
                                  >
                                  > Oh really? You derive that from this statement: "It has come to my
                                  > attention that some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to
                                  monitor
                                  > a subjects computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the
                                  > P.I could also be prosecuted!"? Are you the psychic mind reader
                                  that
                                  > read this poster's mind? If so, you might not be that far off from
                                  > inventing the "psychic computer". Or... Are you just ASSuming that
                                  > the poster was excluding children and employer/employee situations
                                  > from his post?
                                  >
                                  > I am not making any ASSumptions on the meaning ot the original post.
                                  >
                                  > Furthermore, although it was Vicki you directed the question to,
                                  but
                                  > since we all saw it and it was posted to the group, I think we all
                                  > have a right to reply, did you not ASK for exceptions and
                                  exemptions
                                  > to the ECPA? Did you ask for exceptions and exemptions excluding
                                  > those that apply to children and employers? I, I, I, must have
                                  missed
                                  > that part of the question, if you did.....
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > > Jim
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > -----Original Message-----
                                  > > From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                  > <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:infoguys-
                                  > list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:list%40yahoogroups.com> ]
                                  > > On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                                  > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:54 PM
                                  > > To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%
                                  40yahoogroups.com>
                                  >
                                  > > Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                  > <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                                  > > <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jim Parker" <Jim@>
                                  > wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > <<<< Let's say that a parent wants to monitor their thirteen
                                  year
                                  > > old
                                  > > > daughter's Internet usage? >>>>
                                  > > >
                                  > > > And what if they do? Where would one find the "exception"
                                  > > or "exemption"
                                  > > > for teenage children?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > <<<< Let's say that an employer wanted to monitor their
                                  employees
                                  > > Internet
                                  > > > usage on the company computers >>>>
                                  > > >
                                  > > > And precisely what would that have to do with a private
                                  > > investigator, and if
                                  > > > it did, would that mean that the company employees are
                                  > > all "subjects" of the
                                  > > > private investigator's investigation?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Jim
                                  > >
                                  > > As I understand the original post: "It has come to my attention
                                  > that
                                  > > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                                  > > computer.IT IS A FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATION to do so &the P.I
                                  could
                                  > > also be prosecuted!"
                                  > >
                                  > > To put my statement into context...
                                  > >
                                  > > I believe that a Private Investigator can advise and demonstrate
                                  to
                                  > a
                                  > > parent how to install and use a monitoring program for the
                                  express
                                  > > purpose of monitoring their child's activity on the Internet..
                                  This
                                  > > does not mean to say that the Private Investigator that consulted
                                  > to
                                  > > the parent on how to do this has any right to monitor that
                                  child's
                                  > > Internet usage in any way, only the parent does. However, this
                                  does
                                  > > go to the heart of this statement: "It has come to my attention
                                  > that
                                  > > some P.I.s are encouraging Use of Spy ware to monitor a subjects
                                  > > computer". As that the "subject" can be the child and the P.I.
                                  can
                                  > > be "encouraging" the parent (client?) to use the software
                                  described
                                  > > in this statement.
                                  > >
                                  > > The US Supreme Court has ruled that the parent's obligation to
                                  > > protect their child's safety and welfare outweighs any privacy
                                  > issues
                                  > > and/or concerns that the child may have.
                                  > >
                                  > > But to answer your question in as much of a straighforward way as
                                  I
                                  > > can while maintaining my right to be lazy enough to copy and
                                  paste,
                                  > > below are the exceptions to the ECPA:
                                  > >
                                  > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                                  > > "Exceptions for Employees of Network Services
                                  > >
                                  > > The ECPA prohibits employees of Internet providers from
                                  > eavesdropping
                                  > > on subscribers' e-mail or other communication. However, it is not
                                  > > unlawful for these employees to intercept or disclose
                                  communication
                                  > > in the normal course of employment under two conditions:
                                  > >
                                  > > While engaged in the normal required performance of their jobs
                                  > > For the protection of the rights or property of the provider of
                                  the
                                  > > service the statute further restricts how such exceptions may
                                  > occur,
                                  > > specifying that "service observing" and "random monitoring" may
                                  > only
                                  > > be carried out for mechanical or quality control checks.
                                  > >
                                  > > Exceptions for Employers
                                  > > In contrast to private home usage of the Internet, Internet
                                  > > communication in the workplace is given far less privacy
                                  protection
                                  > > under the ECPA. Underpinning this difference are philosophical
                                  > > assumptions about how much privacy individuals may expect at home
                                  > as
                                  > > opposed to what they may normally expect at work. As courts have
                                  > long
                                  > > recognized, several factors influence this question: the nature
                                  of
                                  > > the workplace, the relationship between employees and employers,
                                  > and
                                  > > the legal concerns of employers are all issues that shape why the
                                  > > employee has a lesser expectation of privacy at work than at
                                  home.
                                  > >
                                  > > The law permits private employers to monitor worker e-mail usage
                                  in
                                  > > two main ways:
                                  > >
                                  > > In the ordinary course of business
                                  > > When employees have given consent
                                  > >
                                  > > Because employer monitoring of employees has been at the heart of
                                  > > much LITIGATION, the courts have helped to define what these
                                  > > conditions mean. In determining whether monitoring is legal in
                                  the
                                  > > ordinary course of business, courts generally examine the reasons
                                  > > that businesses conduct the monitoring. Generally, workplace
                                  > > monitoring has been held to be legal under the ECPA where
                                  employers
                                  > > have provided notice of the policy to conduct monitoring and
                                  > limited
                                  > > it to monitoring communication that is business-related rather
                                  than
                                  > > personal.
                                  > >
                                  > > Private business and public sector employees come under different
                                  > > laws. While employees may give consent to monitoring, the courts
                                  > have
                                  > > also found that "implied consent" may exist. This consent occurs
                                  > when
                                  > > employees know or should have known that their employers
                                  intercept
                                  > > their electronic communications. Public sector employers are
                                  > subject
                                  > > to a different legal standard. Monitoring in a government
                                  workplace
                                  > > may trigger constitutional issues such as the First Amendment
                                  right
                                  > > to free speech or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an
                                  > > unreasonable search or seizure.
                                  > >
                                  > > Exceptions for Government Authorities
                                  > > The ECPA governs law enforcement access to private electronic
                                  > > communication. This statutory privacy is not absolute; however,
                                  the
                                  > > law recognizes that law enforcement must be able to conduct its
                                  > work.
                                  > > But the government's power to have access to electronic
                                  > communication
                                  > > unlimited. Like protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to
                                  the
                                  > > U. S. Constitution, the law spells out limits upon government
                                  > > intrusion in this area of private life.
                                  > >
                                  > > Government agents must take specific steps before intercepting
                                  > > communication over the Internet, gaining access to stored
                                  > > communication, or obtaining subscriber information such as
                                  account
                                  > > records and network logs from Internet service providers.
                                  > Generally,
                                  > > they must issue subpoenas or seek and execute court orders such
                                  as
                                  > > search warrants. Greater degrees of invasiveness require court
                                  > > authority. Thus investigators can SUBPOENA basic subscriber
                                  > > information, but they must obtain a SEARCH WARRANT for
                                  EXAMINATION
                                  > of
                                  > > the full content of an account.
                                  > >
                                  > > An additional exception is created for employees or agents of the
                                  > > Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They may intercept or
                                  > > disclose communications in the normal course of employment duties
                                  > or
                                  > > in discharging the FCC's federal monitoring responsibilities
                                  > spelled
                                  > > out in Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code.
                                  > >
                                  > > Additional Exceptions Under the Patriot Act of 2001
                                  > > Signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 2001, the
                                  > > Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes new investigatory powers for law
                                  > > enforcement in response to terrorist attacks upon the nation. Not
                                  > all
                                  > > of its powers are limited to use in fighting TERRORISM, however.
                                  > The
                                  > > 350-page law amends over one dozen existing statutes, including
                                  the
                                  > > ECPA, for use in investigations of COMPUTER CRIME and other
                                  > offenses.
                                  > > Some of the ECPA changes relate to the law's protections for
                                  > > technologies other than the Internet, but a few circumscribe the
                                  > > existing privacy protections for Internet communications and
                                  usage.
                                  > > Not all are permanent. Many are subject to sunset provisions
                                  > provided
                                  > > by lawmakers out of concern over potential long-term harm to
                                  civil
                                  > > liberties.
                                  > >
                                  > > Under the changes, law enforcement agents are able to conduct
                                  > > investigations with fewer legal hindrances:
                                  > >
                                  > > Agents may use the ECPA to compel cable Internet service
                                  providers
                                  > to
                                  > > disclose customer Internet records without obtaining court
                                  orders.
                                  > > Agents have broader authority to obtain stored voice
                                  > communications.
                                  > > This change to the ECPA allows agents to use a search WARRANT for
                                  > > examining all e-mail as well as any attachments to e-mail that
                                  > might
                                  > > contain communication without having to seek further court
                                  > authority.
                                  > > This change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                                  > > Internet service providers may voluntarily make so-
                                  > called "emergency
                                  > > disclosures"of information involving information previously
                                  > > prohibited from disclosure under the ECPA. This information
                                  > includes
                                  > > all customer records and customer communications. The disclosures
                                  > are
                                  > > permitted in situations involving immediate risk of death or
                                  > serious
                                  > > physical injury to any person. However, the law merely permits
                                  such
                                  > > disclosure but does not create an obligation to make them. This
                                  > > change will sunset on December 31, 2005.
                                  > >
                                  > > Without altering the ECPA, other provisions of the Patriot Act
                                  also
                                  > > increase police powers that potentially impact Internet privacy.
                                  > > These include:
                                  > >
                                  > > Extending the authority to trace communications on computer
                                  > networks
                                  > > in a manner similar to tracing telephone calls, along with giving
                                  > > federal courts the power to compel assistance from any
                                  > communication
                                  > > provider allowing agents to obtain nationwide search warrants for
                                  e-
                                  > > mail without the traditional requirement that the issuing court
                                  be
                                  > > within the relevant JURISDICTION. This change will sunset on
                                  > December
                                  > > 31, 2005"
                                  > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                                  > >
                                  > > For full view of the document I quoted from, go to the URL listed
                                  > > here: http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-
                                  > <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet->
                                  > privacy
                                  > > <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy
                                  > <http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy>
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > > Rick.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • suesarkis@aol.com
                                  Rick - It is very, very obvious to me that you truly do not understand what the vicarious consent doctrine is all about. Depending upon the circumstances,
                                  Message 16 of 21 , May 9, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Rick -

                                    It is very, very obvious to me that you truly do not understand what the
                                    "vicarious consent doctrine" is all about.

                                    Depending upon the circumstances, consent may take three (3) different
                                    forms: a) informed; b) presumed; and, c) vicarious.

                                    Informed consent is general consent and I'm certain everyone here
                                    understands the premise.

                                    Presumed consent is when the person is incapable of making an informed
                                    consent such as if a person is rushed into a hospital unconscious. If they are
                                    bleeding to death and surgical intervention is necessary to save their life, it
                                    is presumed that they would consent if they were able.

                                    Vicarious consent is when a surrogate acts on your behalf because you are
                                    not competent or capable enough to make your own informed consent. If a child
                                    is too young to make certain that a parent abide by a court ruling and there
                                    is reason to suspect that the other parent is violating this court order or
                                    ruling, it is permissible for a mother to act as a surrogate on behalf of the
                                    child since, if the child had the knowledge and understanding, it is presumed
                                    they would consent.

                                    However, no such presumption exists whatsoever to assume that a child would
                                    give informed consent to you eavesdropping or intercepting their personal
                                    phone calls or their personal Internet communications just because you want to kn
                                    ow what they are doing. That is their expectation of privacy rights as
                                    defined by law. As stupid as I think it is, that is what the law says. Before
                                    you know it Hillary, Nancy, Diane, Barbara and the rest of those drug-infected
                                    pea-brained flower-children milquetoasts will make it permissible for
                                    everyone to be intercepted by LEO's for their own protection because we are all too
                                    damned stupid to know what is good for us.

                                    No, there is no court decision, State nor Federal, that allows for the
                                    unlawful interception of your child's computer. They do, however, have lots of
                                    "blocking devices" to preclude them from even getting there to begin with.


                                    Sincerely yours,
                                    Sue
                                    ________________________
                                    Sue Sarkis
                                    Sarkis Detective Agency

                                    (est. 1976)
                                    PI 6564
                                    _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

                                    1346 Ethel Street
                                    Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                                    818-242-2505
                                    818-242-9824 FAX

                                    "one Nation under God"

                                    If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
                                    a military veteran !



                                    ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • INVESTIGATORS AUSTRALIA
                                    Sue, As eloquent as ever......a joy to read. Don t ever leave this list. Kind Regards, David Chambers MD Investigators (Australia) Pty Ltd. 387, King William
                                    Message 17 of 21 , May 10, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Sue,

                                      As eloquent as ever......a joy to read. Don't ever leave this list.

                                      Kind Regards,



                                      David Chambers

                                      MD



                                      Investigators (Australia) Pty Ltd.
                                      387, King William Street,
                                      Adelaide, SA 5000

                                      Australia
                                      Phone: +61 (0)8 8212 4629 or Direct: +61 (0)8 8212 4231
                                      Mobile: +61 (0) 415 807 484 Fax: +61 (0)8 8211 7861
                                      Email: detect@...

                                      www.investigatorsoz.com.au
                                      Established 1969
                                      Investigations, Defence, Tracing, Statements, Process serving, Locus
                                      reports, Surveillance and Electronic counter-surveillance.

                                      Members of W.A.P.I. World Association of Professional Investigators.
                                      Licenced in South Australia.

                                      We cover Australia and New Zealand and have agents in most other countries
                                      including Asia and Europe.

                                      This electronic message may contain information which may be privileged or
                                      confidential in nature.

                                      Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
                                      prohibited. If you have received this message in error or are not the
                                      intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete the file from your
                                      system.



                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                                      On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
                                      Sent: 10 May 2007 16:15
                                      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL

                                      Rick -

                                      It is very, very obvious to me that you truly do not understand what the
                                      "vicarious consent doctrine" is all about.

                                      Depending upon the circumstances, consent may take three (3) different
                                      forms: a) informed; b) presumed; and, c) vicarious.

                                      Informed consent is general consent and I'm certain everyone here
                                      understands the premise.

                                      Presumed consent is when the person is incapable of making an informed
                                      consent such as if a person is rushed into a hospital unconscious. If they
                                      are
                                      bleeding to death and surgical intervention is necessary to save their life,
                                      it
                                      is presumed that they would consent if they were able.

                                      Vicarious consent is when a surrogate acts on your behalf because you are
                                      not competent or capable enough to make your own informed consent. If a
                                      child
                                      is too young to make certain that a parent abide by a court ruling and
                                      there
                                      is reason to suspect that the other parent is violating this court order or

                                      ruling, it is permissible for a mother to act as a surrogate on behalf of
                                      the
                                      child since, if the child had the knowledge and understanding, it is
                                      presumed
                                      they would consent.

                                      However, no such presumption exists whatsoever to assume that a child would

                                      give informed consent to you eavesdropping or intercepting their personal
                                      phone calls or their personal Internet communications just because you want
                                      to kn
                                      ow what they are doing. That is their expectation of privacy rights as
                                      defined by law. As stupid as I think it is, that is what the law says.
                                      Before
                                      you know it Hillary, Nancy, Diane, Barbara and the rest of those
                                      drug-infected
                                      pea-brained flower-children milquetoasts will make it permissible for
                                      everyone to be intercepted by LEO's for their own protection because we are
                                      all too
                                      damned stupid to know what is good for us.

                                      No, there is no court decision, State nor Federal, that allows for the
                                      unlawful interception of your child's computer. They do, however, have
                                      lots of
                                      "blocking devices" to preclude them from even getting there to begin with.


                                      Sincerely yours,
                                      Sue
                                      ________________________
                                      Sue Sarkis
                                      Sarkis Detective Agency

                                      (est. 1976)
                                      PI 6564
                                      _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

                                      1346 Ethel Street
                                      Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                                      818-242-2505
                                      818-242-9824 FAX

                                      "one Nation under God"

                                      If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank

                                      a military veteran !



                                      ************************************** See what's free at
                                      http://www.aol.com


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                      <p><hr></p>
                                      To subscribe, send an empty message to <a
                                      href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscrib
                                      e@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
                                      To unsubscribe, send a message to <a
                                      href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubs
                                      cribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
                                      <p><hr></p>
                                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    • Bob Hrodey
                                      ... Obviously you were referring to sick bird acts here. i.e. ill eagle ... The same way LE does on a Title III: Minimization. You are monitoring Tony
                                      Message 18 of 21 , May 10, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Jim Parker wrote:
                                        > And if the Private Investigator does not inform the parent of the legal
                                        > ramifications of such an act, the Private Investigator best have his
                                        > insurance paid up. Oh wait - insurance doesn't generally cover intentional
                                        > legal acts. Hmm.. can you say "second mortgage?" Sure, I knew you could.
                                        >

                                        Obviously you were referring to sick bird acts here. i.e. ill eagle

                                        > Also, as a general rule, should an employer be authorized to monitor his/her
                                        > employees communications, that monitoring must be restricted solely to
                                        > business communications. The monitoring of private communications generally
                                        > crosses the line, so assuming no one has invented a psychic computer
                                        > monitoring program, how is going to possibly tell the difference between
                                        > personal and business communications?
                                        >

                                        The same way LE does on a Title III: Minimization. You are monitoring
                                        Tony Soprano's phones and you listen to only enough of that call to
                                        determine what the subject matter is. If it's about that no-show job at
                                        the construction company in New Yawk, you let the tape roll and keep
                                        listening. If it's about the young lady with the new set of... at the
                                        Bada Bing, you turn off the tape and headphones and are free to go back
                                        and listen intermittently to insure that the topic has not turned to an
                                        illegal act covered by the warrant.

                                        > However, all the extraneous BS aside, I don't think there is a lot of doubt
                                        > in anyone's mind the context intended in the original post, and it had
                                        > little or nothing to do with children or employees.
                                        >

                                        Agreed



                                        --

                                        Enjoy,

                                        Bob
                                        ________________________________________________________________
                                        Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                                        Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                                        Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                                        Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                                        email: inquiry@... or rth@...
                                        Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
                                      • Jim Parker
                                        ... Ummm... yeah. insurance doesn t generally cover intentional ILLEGAL acts. I saw that after I posted it, but thought, screw it; no one s reading this
                                        Message 19 of 21 , May 10, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          <<<< Obviously you were referring to sick bird acts here. i.e. ill eagle
                                          >>>>

                                          Ummm... yeah. "insurance doesn't generally cover intentional ILLEGAL acts."
                                          I saw that after I posted it, but thought, "screw it; no one's reading this
                                          crap anyway".

                                          <<<< If it's about the young lady with the new set of... at the
                                          Bada Bing, you turn off the tape and headphones and are free to go back
                                          and listen intermittently >>>>

                                          Unfortunately, key loggers don't work that way.

                                          <<<< Agreed >>>>

                                          Hoorrrayyy!!

                                          By the way, Bob, I may be in the Chicago area soon. If you're good, I might
                                          let you buy me a large steak in one of your finest eateries.

                                          Jim

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                                          On Behalf Of Bob Hrodey
                                          Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:44 AM
                                          To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Re: ILLEGAL

                                          Jim Parker wrote:
                                          > And if the Private Investigator does not inform the parent of the legal
                                          > ramifications of such an act, the Private Investigator best have his
                                          > insurance paid up. Oh wait - insurance doesn't generally cover
                                          intentional
                                          > legal acts. Hmm.. can you say "second mortgage?" Sure, I knew you could.
                                          >

                                          Obviously you were referring to sick bird acts here. i.e. ill eagle

                                          > Also, as a general rule, should an employer be authorized to monitor
                                          his/her
                                          > employees communications, that monitoring must be restricted solely to
                                          > business communications. The monitoring of private communications
                                          generally
                                          > crosses the line, so assuming no one has invented a psychic computer
                                          > monitoring program, how is going to possibly tell the difference between
                                          > personal and business communications?
                                          >

                                          The same way LE does on a Title III: Minimization. You are monitoring
                                          Tony Soprano's phones and you listen to only enough of that call to
                                          determine what the subject matter is. If it's about that no-show job at
                                          the construction company in New Yawk, you let the tape roll and keep
                                          listening. If it's about the young lady with the new set of... at the
                                          Bada Bing, you turn off the tape and headphones and are free to go back
                                          and listen intermittently to insure that the topic has not turned to an
                                          illegal act covered by the warrant.

                                          > However, all the extraneous BS aside, I don't think there is a lot of
                                          doubt
                                          > in anyone's mind the context intended in the original post, and it had
                                          > little or nothing to do with children or employees.
                                          >

                                          Agreed



                                          --

                                          Enjoy,

                                          Bob
                                          ________________________________________________________________
                                          Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                                          Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                                          Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                                          Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                                          email: inquiry@... or rth@...
                                          Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063



                                          <p><hr></p>
                                          To subscribe, send an empty message to <a
                                          href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscrib
                                          e@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
                                          To unsubscribe, send a message to <a
                                          href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubs
                                          cribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
                                          <p><hr></p>
                                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        • suesarkis@aol.com
                                          In a message dated 5/10/2007 8:38:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Jim@FloridaDetectives.com writes: I saw that after I posted it, but thought, screw it; no
                                          Message 20 of 21 , May 10, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            In a message dated 5/10/2007 8:38:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                                            Jim@... writes:

                                            I saw that after I posted it, but thought, "screw it; no one's reading this
                                            crap anyway".



                                            Jim -

                                            Considering the ridiculous misinformation that first followed the first
                                            post, I hope to God that everyone paid attention.



                                            Sincerely yours,
                                            Sue
                                            ________________________
                                            Sue Sarkis
                                            Sarkis Detective Agency

                                            (est. 1976)
                                            PI 6564
                                            _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

                                            1346 Ethel Street
                                            Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                                            818-242-2505
                                            818-242-9824 FAX

                                            "one Nation under God"

                                            If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
                                            a military veteran !



                                            ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Bob Hrodey
                                            ... I can offer something much more tasty than a large steak at a considerable savings in cost. Ask Baldy, er, Brian for details Seriously, you have the
                                            Message 21 of 21 , May 10, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Jim Parker wrote:
                                              > <<<< Obviously you were referring to sick bird acts here. i.e. ill eagle
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Ummm... yeah. "insurance doesn't generally cover intentional ILLEGAL acts."
                                              > I saw that after I posted it, but thought, "screw it; no one's reading this
                                              > crap anyway".
                                              >
                                              > <<<< If it's about the young lady with the new set of... at the
                                              > Bada Bing, you turn off the tape and headphones and are free to go back
                                              > and listen intermittently >>>>
                                              >
                                              > Unfortunately, key loggers don't work that way.
                                              >
                                              > <<<< Agreed >>>>
                                              >
                                              > Hoorrrayyy!!
                                              >
                                              > By the way, Bob, I may be in the Chicago area soon. If you're good, I might
                                              > let you buy me a large steak in one of your finest eateries.
                                              >

                                              I can offer something much more tasty than a large steak at a
                                              considerable savings in cost. Ask Baldy, er, Brian for details<g>

                                              Seriously, you have the numbers, give me a call with the details.

                                              --

                                              Enjoy,

                                              Bob
                                              ________________________________________________________________
                                              Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                                              Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                                              Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                                              Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                                              email: inquiry@... or rth@...
                                              Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.