From: Dave Stewart (no email)
Date: Mon Jun 24 2002 - 16:27:09 EDT
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.
|
|
|