HP3000-L Archives

October 2008, Week 5

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:16:57 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (55 lines)
I am shocked that I agree (mostly) with Mr Byrne on this matter.

The same justification could be applied to warrentless wiretaps, etc.
by contending they did not actually listen to the conversation, just
submitted it to an AI for analysis.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:44:05 -0400, James B. Byrne <byrnejb@HARTE-
LYNE.CA> wrote:

>>
>> Date:    Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:56:48 -0400
>> From:    "Johnson, Tracy" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Eugene Watch:  Volokh Conspiracy Slashdotted
>>
>> Actually on topic in a way, does that also cover TurboImage hashing?
>>
>
>No.  MD5 hashing in the sense presented is not a method of disc addressing
>database entries but a method of (fairly) reliably identifying the
>contents of one file by comparing its bit pattern "fingerprint" to the
>"fingerprint" of another file having known contents.  If the hash sums
>match then, in the vast majority of cases (>99.99999...%), the contents do
>too.
>
>The critical element in the issue at law is the purpose of said comparison
>and whether of not agents of the state can execute a "search" for
>"fingerprints" on private property without a warrant, for which they need
>show "probable cause."
>
>The sophistry involved by the authorities in their attempted evasion of
>the the warrant requirement lies in the meaning they attribute to the word
>search. Their contention is that if they do not actually "view" the file
>contents, whatever that means given that an MD5 hash must by its nature
>consider every single bit in a file, then they have not "searched" the
>file.
>
>This sort of self-justification, ascribing particular and self-serving
>limits to the meanings of words, is quite common.  I am both surprised and
>pleased that the Justices saw through it.
>
>
>--
>***          E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel          ***
>James B. Byrne                mailto:[log in to unmask]
>Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
>9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
>Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
>Canada  L8E 3C3
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2