Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking

Fri Jul 26 14:25:59 UTC 2002

Private individuals are not necessarily bound by the 4th amendment. A good
example are bail agents (i.e. Bounty hunters). Look it up - they can do
warrantless searches and entries in some states.

- Daniel Golding

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Joseph T. Klein
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 8:14 PM
> To: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
>
>
>
> Off topic a bit, I'll shut up after this ... all follow ups
> to /dev/null.
>
> This only applies to US citizens ...
>
> To follow up on the private responses "IV does not apply to companies".
>
> In the case of stolen copyright material being stored within the home; no
> one has the right to enter a home unless they are accompanied by
> a government official with a warrant.
>
> If my neighbor steals something from me I have no right to go into
> that person's house and take or destroy the stolen item.
>
> I am required by common and civil law to ask the local law enforcement
> agency to act on my behalf. That officer must abide by the constitution.
> A warrant must be issued. A judge must have due cause to issue
> the warrant.
>
> The Internet is no different than the sidewalk leading to my house.
> I do not need to have my door locked or have a fence to be protected
> *by the law* from trespassers.
>
> Note ... I suggest reading the caselaw sources for the 4th amendment.
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=
us&vol=116&invol=616#626

"By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so
minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my
license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing, which
is proved by every declaration in trespass where the defendant is called
upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil.
If he admits the fact, he is bound to show, by way of justification, that
some positive law has justified or excused him. The justification is
submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books, and see if such
a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by
the principles of the common law."

--On Thursday, 25 July 2002 19:15 +0000 "Joseph T. Klein" <jtk at titania.net>
wrote:

>
> I would argue that my home computer is the repository of my papers
> and effects. No place in the below law does it limit the restriction
> to the government only. Indeed any law passed giving sanction to any
> party having the right IMHO is in direct violation of both the spiret
> and the letter of the Bill of Rights.
>
> Amendment IV
>
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>
> The dogs of stupidy have been unleashed.
>
> --On Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:40 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have
>> to clean up the resulting messes...
>>
>> Regards
>> Marshall Eubanks
--
Joseph T. Klein                                         jtk at titania.net

    "... preserve, protect and defend the constitution ..."
                                         -- Presidential Oath of Office