Capturing keystrokes of email in composition would appear to me to be part of a "transfer of ..intelligence of any nature transmitted ... in part by a wire...", and nothing to do with stored email or 2703, but I am not a lawyer.
-- Peter Fairbrother > Steven M. Bellovin wrote: [snip] > The problem is that you're thinking like a computer scientist instead > of like a lawyer... > > Definitions are important in the law. The wiretap statute (18 USC 2510 > et seq, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2510.html) defines > an "electronic communication" as "any transfer of signs, > signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any > nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, > electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that > affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include - > (A) any wire or oral communication..." ("Wire communications" > refers to telephone calls.) Interception of such transmissions > is one of the things governed by the wiretap statute; the procedure > for getting an authorization for a tap is very cumbersome, > and is subject to numerous restrictions in both the statute and > DoJ regulations. > > Access to *stored communications* -- things that aren't actually > traveling over a wire -- are governed by 18 USC 2701 et seq., > which was added to the wiretap statute in 1986. (That's when > electronic communications were added as well.) The rules for > access there are much simpler. But that section was written on > the assumption that email would only be stored on your service > bureau's machine! In this case, it would appear that we're back to > the ordinary search and seizure statutes governing any computer records > owned by an individual. *But* -- if they're *in the process of being > sent* -- 2511 would apply, it would be a wiretap, and it would be > hard to do. The FBI agents who wrote that keystroke logger are > well aware of this distinction, and apparently tried to finesse > the point by ensuring that no communications (within the meaning > of the statute) were taking place when their package was operating. > > I suppose that someone could make an argument to a judge that > email being composed is intended for transmission, and that it > should therefore be covered by 2511. The government's counter will > be to cite 2703, which provides for simpler access to some email, as > evidence that Congress did not intend the same protections for > email not actually in transit. I'd have to reread the ruling > in the Steve Jackson Games case to carry my analysis any further, > but I'll leave that to the real lawyers. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Cryptography Mailing List > Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
