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 sp
At 4:57 PM -0500 3/5/03, John S. Denker wrote:
Tim Dierks wrote:
In order to avoid overreaction to a nth-hand story, I've attempted to
locate some primary sources.
Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines:
> http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/9th/case/9955106p&exact=1
[US v Councilman:]
http://pacer.mad
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
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 wi
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
The (U.S.) ban on wiretapping without judicial permission is rooted
in a Supreme Court decision, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347
(1967)
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=347)
which held that a wiretap is a search whic
Tim Dierks wrote:
> In order to avoid overreaction to a nth-hand story, I've attempted to
> locate some primary sources.
>
> Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines:
> http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/9th/case/9955106p&exact=1
[US v Councilman:]
> http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/ponsor/pdf/counc
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 th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "R. A. Hettinga" wr
ites:
>
>--- begin forwarded text
>
>
>Status: RO
>From: Somebody
>To: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Perio
>d (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
>Date:
--- begin forwarded text
Status: RO
From: Somebody
To: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was
Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 14:09:05 -0500
At 01:47 PM 3/2/2003 +, MindFuq wrote:
* Tim Dierks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-03-02 12:27]:
>
> 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 ph
* Tim Dierks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-03-02 12:27]:
>
> 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 cal
Ron
At 09:42 PM 3/1/2003, Tim Dierks wrote:
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
&
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 r
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 pr
14 matches
Mail list logo
