[Full-disclosure] You shady bastards.

[J. Oquendo]

Tim wrote:
>> Why would it be illegal if his former employer accessed his email using
>> this method. The information going to their network is considered their
>> property and they could do as they see fit.
>>     
>
> This is a poor assumption.  See the Wiretap Act and the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act.  Of course these are just US laws, but it
> seems this is the scenario we're discussing.
>
> tim
>
>   

Spare me and the list...

/ * SNIPPED * /
What about an employer's right to read e-mails as
they come in? As they hit the inbound server? ...
If the e-mail is not subject to the consent of
all parties, and one of the parties (either the
sender or recipient) lives in a jurisdiction
that mandates all party consent, then this could
be an unlawful interception under state law.
(Federal law requires only one party consent.)


http://www.securityfocus.com/print/columnists/412

*NOTE Federal Law*
/* END SNIP * /

Or search ... Nancy K. Garrity, et al. v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co

And no I won't bother with US v. Councilman

-- 
====================================================
J. Oquendo
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743
echo infiltrated.net|sed 's/^/sil@/g' 

"Wise men talk because they have something to say;
fools, because they have to say something." -- Plato


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5157 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20070606/75253494/attachment.bin