Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
You're confusing two concepts. "Warrants" apply to government behavior; terming something a "wireless wiretap" carries the clear implication of government action. Private action may or may not violate the wiretap act or the Stored Communications Act, but it has nothing to do with warrants.
First, there is no confusion here; I was simply addressing both issues as in my original question to the list: The often expressed idea that SSL/TLS and port 587 are somehow able to prevent warrantless wiretapping and so on, or protect any private communications, is IMO simply not supported by facts. Second, those two issues are not as orthogonal as one might think. After all, an ISP is already collaborating in the case of a warrantless wiretap. So, where would the tap take place: 1. where the email is encrypted, or 2. where the email is not encrypted. Considering the objective of the tap, and the expenses incurred to do it, it seems quite improbable to choose #1. Thanks for Mr. Councilman's case update. I mentioned it only because it shows what does happen and the economic motivations for it, none of which could have been prevented by SSL/TLS protecting email submission. Cheers, Ed Gerck --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
