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]
      • 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.