When I write a note on a piece of paper, fold it and stick it in an envelope then place it in a box on the street, I am transferring information (regardless of its content - legal or not). Many people, possibly hundreds, handle this 'packet' on its way to its destination.

Someone then puts it in an unlocked box on the sidewalk outside someone elses house. Where, apart from trusting the operators of this service ie: the post office, is the security in this? A piece of paper in a box on the sidewalk has no security at all. But an expectation of privacy? You bet, in fact it is vigorously protected and enforced by law. We all know the consequences of 'peeking' at someone elses mail.

And yet the internet, with its packets of information are also open for abuse and you say that we should accept that the law does not protect us from those who would have a peek?

I will never agree that purley because of the system used to convey the information, that we should never have the right to expect privacy. A bit of enforcement of those who choose to sneek a peek will soon (i hope) make the wider community accept that morally (and it should also be legally) it is wrong to do so, as with post office mail service. Does the Post Office have the right to ban you from ever purchasing a stamp again just because they are told that you included illegal content (ie: slander, language, criminal plans etc) in a letter to your girlfriend? Then why should an ISP be allowed to 'sniff' TCP packets? Even the Post Office isn't allowed to inspect every package.

Analogue mobile phones were completely insecure, yet it was still upheld that the users did have protected by law their right to the expectation of privacy. Just being told that devices such as 'scanners' (RF) existed did not waive your right to privacy.

As for the RIAA employing people to use gnutella and download mp3's to use as evidence against an individual, just who is breaking the law? OK, i made the file available, but they initiated the download, re-compiled the file and were then able to play the copyrighted music.

I think the reason they haven't done anything to gnutella yet (the napster drama has been going on for ages...) is that, at this point, they don't know how to, legally. Thats why things like worms embedded in files and distributed by the industry seems like a more likely, clandestine scenario to me. Pretty scary, but would they dare? I doubt it. I guess we'll see.

True enough. However, you were smart enough to put it in an envelope. Emails are more like postcards. Anyone can read them. With minimal effort, I could read at least my neighbor's emails, if not every email sent over the @home network in my section of town. It's so easy a child could do it. In fact, lots of children DO do it.

If I sent you a postcard that said "Meet me at the First National Bank at 12 noon for the Robbery", you'd better believe the cops would be within their rights to arrest me (and maybe you) for consipiracy.

If you encrypt it, then you've put it in an envelope, and the law is more likely to protect your right to privacy there, since a reasonable person could expect that communication to be private.

I didn't say you should accept it ... I don't like it. Good news is, it's not a law, in the sense that it's not legislation. It is, however, law in the sense that this is how the courts are interpretting the Constitution with regard to the internet.

Another example: If i commit an illegal act in front of a window that faces the street, a cop walking by is within his rights to bust down the door and arrest me, and search the crime scene. Why? Because I had no reasonable expectation of privacy, since I made no effort to conceal my activity. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term. Agree or disagree, that's the way the court rulings are going. It's important that people know this. Right now, it is absolutely legal for your ISP to sniff your internet packets. If you want to change it, contact your Congress person, or your Senator. I wouldn't expect much out of dubya.

Umm ... that would make you the criminal. It's their copyrighted material, remember? They can do whatever they want with it. As long as they're not sending you emails begging you to share the files, they're not entrapping you, they're just catching you. And they have done this before.

This is exactly how Metallica got users banned by Napster. They downloaded copyrighted material, recorded the name of the user, and sent the list to Napster, who, as required by law, banned the users from their service. Again, this is the law. If you share copyrighted material via the net, the owner of the copyright has the right to have you shut down. If you don't like it, write your congressman or congresswoman. Whining here doesn't help matters any.

Oh ... and as for embedding worms in files and releasing them, I'm not sure that you could successfully code a worm into an .mp3 file ... that would require your .mp3 player to do some pretty strange things, and I just don't see it happening. You could do with an .exe file, but anyone ignorant and/or stupid enough to open an .exe file downloaded from a network like the gnutella network deserves what he/she gets.

Like you said in a later message, THAT SUCKS!

But we can do something about it, start saying it's now legal to tap the president, congress and any other polititions you can think of because their packets on the "phonenet" (internet, gnet no dif) are not secure.

Watch how fast they don't want you to know about their girlfriends on the side.

How do you think the cell phone thing went through so quick?

Actually, the possesion of an mp3 file is completely legal. Say you have the cd then make an mp3 for convenience sake, no law is broken. Once you have bought the cd you have bought exclusive rights to it's private usage. It is only illegal when the file is distributed to the public either actively or passively. You can make as many tapes, mp3... as you want as long as you do not let it get into the hands of the public. Also if memory serves me right there is a 24 hour grace period where one may sample the mp3 or has that changed.