Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period(was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
John says: Wireless is a horse of a different color. IANAL but the last time I looked, there was no federal law against intercepting most wireless signals, but you were (generally) not allowed to disclose the contents to anyone else. No longer, if it ever was. It's a crime, as evidenced by the wireless scandal a few years back when some Democrat partisan intercepted communications of Republican leadership in Florida, then talked. The simple act of interception was illegal. Will Rodger - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period(was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
Will Rodger wrote: John says: Wireless is a horse of a different color. IANAL but the last time I looked, there was no federal law against intercepting most wireless signals, but you were (generally) not allowed to disclose the contents to anyone else. No longer, if it ever was. It's a crime, as evidenced by the wireless scandal a few years back when some Democrat partisan intercepted communications of Republican leadership in Florida, then talked. The simple act of interception was illegal. Next time, before disagreeing with someone: a) Please read what he actually wrote, and b) Don't quote snippets out of context. Three sentences later, at the end of the paragraph that began as quoted above, I explicitly pointed out that cellphone transmissions are a more-protected special case. - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
John says: Next time, before disagreeing with someone: a) Please read what he actually wrote, and b) Don't quote snippets out of context. Three sentences later, at the end of the paragraph that began as quoted above, I explicitly pointed out that cellphone transmissions are a more-protected special case. Well, I did the first and, I thought, avoided the second. I misunderstood what you meant. Sorry. Will - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
At 02:30 PM 3/5/2003 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: From: Somebody Technically, since their signal speed is slower than light, even transmission lines act as storage devices. Wire tapping is now legal. The crucial difference, from a law enforcement perspective, is how hard it is to get the requisite court order. A stored message order is relatively easy; a wiretap order is very hard. Note that this distinction is primarily statutory, not (as far as I know) constitutional. Furthermore, it's apparently not illegal for a non-governmental actor to retrieve stored information which they have access to, although it might be illegal for them to wiretap a communication even if they had access to the physical medium over which it travels. I disagree with Somebody's claim; I don't think that claim would go anywhere in court, since a transmission clearly falls under the category of wire communication, and it's clear that transmission lines are the very entities the wiretap act has always been intended to protect, so Congress' intent is quite clear, regardless of any argument about storage. - Tim - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
At 01:39 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 9:01 AM -0500 on 2/27/03, BNA Highlights wrote: WIRETAP ACT DOES NOT COVER MESSAGE 'IN STORAGE' FOR SHORT PERIOD BNA's Electronic Commerce Law Report reports that a federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that the federal Wiretap Act does not prohibit the improper acquisition of electronic communications that were in storage no matter how ephemeral that storage may be. The court relied on Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc., which held that no Wiretap Act violation occurs when an electronic communication is accessed while in storage, even if the interception takes place during a nanosecond 'juncture' of storage along the path of transmission. Case name is U.S. v. Councilman. Article at http://pubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/eip.nsf/is/a0a6m6y1k8 For a free trial to source of this story, visit http://web.bna.com/products/ip/eplr.htm This would seem to imply to me that the wiretap act does not apply to any normal telephone conversation which is carried at any point in its transit by an electronic switch, including all cell phone calls and nearly all wireline calls, since any such switch places the data of the ongoing call in storage for a tiny fraction of a second. - Tim - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
