|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:27:09 -0400 To: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu From: Dave Stewart <dbs@dbscom.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020624142859.0353c810@mail.macronet.net> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu At 02:29 PM 6/24/2002, you wrote: >>Point 3) is just about the same as 1), but it does imply >>a slightly different motivation behind the inspection. > >I know informing a suspect of a phone tap, in the telecom business will >get you hard time. SO again, check with your law people...a lot's changed >since 9.11 and the police state is doing things that havent been ruled >legal or illegal by the USSC. So beware and get competent legal council >before implementing anything. I do know that when I've gotten supoenas for information (logs, etc), I was instructed by language in the document not to disclose its existance. I always suspected this included informing the customer! It makes sense when you think about it - if you know your data's being inspected, you're not going to send that message about whatever illegal activity you're involved in. So authorities investigating something, even pre-9/11, don't want the subject of that investigation to know they're being looked at. I think that beyond including in your TOS that you may from time to time inspect data, etc, for system/network security and/or performance reasons, you can't inform customers every time you start looking at things. IANAL, though, so do seek competent legal counsel on the issue before implementing anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |