Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)

2003-03-05 Thread Steven M. Bellovin
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: Sun, 2 Mar 2003

Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)

2003-03-05 Thread Tim Dierks
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

Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)

2003-03-03 Thread Bill Stewart
That's outrageous - if the explanation is correct, then either the judge didn't have a clue about modern communication technology, or the judge did have a clue and was deciding that it's ok for the Feds to wiretap all IP traffic, including email and Voice Over IP, all compressed voice, including

Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)

2003-03-03 Thread R. A. Hettinga
--- 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 Bob, Technically, since their signal