Re: [Full-disclosure] Clever crooks can foil wiretaps, security flaw in tap technology

[Stan Bubrouski <stan.bubrouski@xxxxxxxxx>]

While you make some valid points, lets not escalate this to another
political discussion ;-)

-sb

On 11/30/05, Dude VanWinkle <dudevanwinkle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Andy Lindeman <alindeman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think we're talking about legal wiretaps, e.g. a law enforcement
> > agency with a court order.  The problem is if you can easily fool the
> > system, the evidence is possibly unreliable and/or tainted.  However,
> > even if you can temporarily "fool" the law enforcement agency in
> > question, it's doubtful this would keep you out of trouble for long.
>
> If law enforcement is involved in a wiretap, that means they dont have
> enough evidence to convict you. Even if they do have enough evidence
> to convict you, they have yet to do so, or you wouldn't be on the
> phone. This means they are snooping on innocent civilians by providing
> circumstantial evidence to a judge (or, since the "Provide Appropriate
> Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" act, they may not
> even need a warrant)
>
> Either way, this is a bad tangent to go off on. That was a great study
> done, and shouldn't be trivialized by my ramblings.
>
> Does anyone know of a C-Tone for GPS devices? ;-)
>
> -JP
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/