[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mutt no longer in non-us?

Brian Ristuccia writes:

> On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 11:31:19AM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> > Brian Ristuccia writes:
> > 
> > > Wouldn't seizing said machines violate the electronic communication privacy
> > > act or something similar by interefering with email on those machines as
> > > well?
> > 
> > The ECPA doesn't prevent police from seizing computer hardware when they
> > have a warrant, although it would be fun if it did.
> Hmm.. Looks like you may be right. Doies the ECPA offer hardware used to run
> a mail server any protection from civil asset forfeiture?

The ECPA is about privacy, and it has most to do with restricting
non-governmental or unauthorized governmental invasions of privacy, not
with limiting legally authorized government actions.  Indeed, since ECPA,
the scope of those has gotten larger (e.g. through CALEA).

If someone wants to seize your hardware in a civil proceeding, and that
hardware contains private e-mail or other personal information, it might
be a good idea to try to bring a legal action to prevent disclosure or
abuse of that information.  In that case, you would want to consult a lawyer
about the best way to do that.

A good book with a recent historical perspective on seizure of computers in
the US is _The Hacker Crackdown_ (by Bruce Sterling).  Operation Sundevil
was almost ten years ago, though, and a lot of things have changed since

Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org>  | And do not say, I will study when I
     http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/    | have leisure; for perhaps you will
     http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)    | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5

Reply to: