Replies

Well, that's too generic of a statement for me to really want to get too far into, but no, the purpose of the software doesn't matter in regards to the question of whether or not the data traffic is in the public domain in the first place.

Yes, it does.

You know, even under the "Patriot" Act, they have to get a judge to get permission to read your content. They don't have to show probable cause, but they do need to go to a judge. Would they need that if it were public domain?

Either sniffers have a right to view your (and everyone else's) coincidental data packets while they are diagnosing technical problems AND other software on other machines have a similar right to examine data packets OR only the intended reciever of the data has the right to read packets (which would shut down the Internet because reading packets is REQUIRED for routing and technical diagnostics).

False choice. There are other options, specifically, only the intended HUMAN recipient has a right to read it without a warrant. How hard is that to understand? There's a difference between computers passing it over and even checking for technical problems, and another PERSON reading it. Are you even capable of understanding my point, or are you simply an idiot?

"You know, even under the "Patriot" Act, they have to get a judge to get permission to read your content. They don't have to show probable cause, but they do need to go to a judge. Would they need that if it were public domain?"

Don't be silly. Carnivore was in use for YEARS before the Patriot Act was even put on paper. President Bush and Congress only want the court order because they want to set good precedents for future government behavior. Just with packet radio alone I can conclusively show that both government and private machines have a right to listen in on all data traffic, and that's merely a layman's example.

"False choice. There are other options, specifically, only the intended HUMAN recipient has a right to read it without a warrant. How hard is that to understand? There's a difference between computers passing it over and even checking for technical problems, and another PERSON reading it."

Your premise is fatally flawed. When you hook up a sniffer to view data traffic, the humans involved can see ALL of the data in those packets in plain text, and they are certainly not the intended recipients of those messages. Another flaw in your reasoning is the human versus machine difference. Once you let machines read or record data traffic, the genie is out of the bottle. An analogy to what you are claiming would be letting a machine tape record a phone conversation be legal so long as no person was allowed to listen to the tape. The flaw in that position is that there is no law preventing an American from listening to a tape. Once the tape is recorded, the genie is out of the bottle. The same holds true for letting other machines read data traffic. Once the machine has been permitted access, the genie is loose. You can't go stop a human from looking at the data on their own machine, after all.

I hope that helps.