From: William Allen Simpson (no email)
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 11:02:09 EDT
James Edwards wrote:
>
> It seems to me all the court said is you cannot use the Wire Tap Act
> in a case that the communication is not on the wire.
That is, at any time (the phrase "seconds or mili-seconds" [sic]) that
the transmission is not actually on a wire.
Switches, routers, and any intermediate computers are fair game for
warrantless wiretaps.
> The court did note
> the they felt this Act needs updating. They indicated the Act was very specific
> and they did not feel extending the Act to cover e-mail in the conditions mentioned
> was something they could do, without new law to guide them.
>
> The court did not rubber stamp "e-mail snooping". This case can be argued on other
> grounds. But many of those seem to be a grey areas.
>
Obviously, you didn't read the opinion. Most important, read the
very nicely written dissent. The dissenting judge used the correct
terms, referenced RFCs, and in general knew what he was talking about --
unlike the 2:1 majority!
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1383-01A.pdf
"... Under Councilman's narrow interpretation of the Act, the
Government would no longer need to obtain a court-authorized wiretap
order to conduct such surveillance. This would effectuate a dramatic
change in Justice Department policy and mark a significant reduction
in the public's right to privacy.
" Such a change would not, however, be limited to the interception
of e-mails. Under Councilman's approach, the government would be free
to intercept all wire and electronic communications that are in
temporary electronic storage without having to comply with the Wiretap
Act's procedural protections. That means that the Government could
install taps at telephone company switching stations to monitor phone
conversations that are temporarily "stored" in electronic routers
during transmission. "
[page 51-52]
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
|
|
|