[iwar] [fc:US.panel.sets.compromise.over.cyber.surveillance.of.judges]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-21 19:13:45


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2188-1001124798-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 2135 invoked by uid 510); 22 Sep 2001 02:14:12 -0000
Received: from n8.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.58) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 02:14:12 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2188-1001124798-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.224] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Sep 2001 02:13:46 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 22 Sep 2001 02:13:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 99629 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2001 02:13:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 22 Sep 2001 02:13:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 02:13:46 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id TAA32342 for iwar@onelist.com; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:13:46 -0700
Message-Id: <200109220213.TAA32342@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:US.panel.sets.compromise.over.cyber.surveillance.of.judges]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

US panel sets compromise over cyber surveillance of judges

ANANOVA, 9/21/01 http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_403814.html

A judicial panel in the US has decided jurors and court employees should
have some of their internet activities monitored, but not their email. 

The move establishes a policy for around 30,000 federal court employees,
including around 1,800 judges. 

It comes after judges objected to a proposal to allow unlimited
surveillance.  They feared illegal snooping by administrators in
Washington. 

The Judicial Conference approved a compromise allowing some tracking of
internet use, such as to identify whether pornography or music had been
downloaded. 

US District Judge Edwin Nelson of Birmingham, Alabama, says the
constitution gives judges independence in decision-making, but did not
place them above the law or free them from responsibility and
accountability. 

Judges had moved against an earlier proposal that would have required
them and their employees to agree to unlimited monitoring of their email
and internet use. 

The new plan accommodates their concerns by omission - it doesn't
mention email and has removed the earlier reference to 'unlimited'
monitoring. 

A recent study by the University Of Denver's Privacy Foundation
estimated that a third of all US workers with internet access are
routinely monitored. 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XrFcOC/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:47 PDT