[12625] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Wed Mar 5 18:51:45 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com>
Cc: cryptography@wasabisystems.com, cypherpunks@lne.com,
Tim Dierks <tim@dierks.org>, "Ronald L. Rivest" <rivest@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Mar 2003 20:59:11 EST."
<E18pfHS-0004zw-00@maynard.mail.mindspring.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:30:54 -0500
In message <E18pfHS-0004zw-00@maynard.mail.mindspring.net>, "R. A. Hettinga" wr
ites:
>
>--- begin forwarded text
>
>
>Status: RO
>From: Somebody
>To: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com>
>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 14:09:05 -0500
>
>Bob,
>
>Technically, since their signal speed is slower than light, even
>transmission lines act as storage devices.
>
>Wire tapping is now legal.
>
No, that's not waht the decision means. Access to stored messages also
requires court permission. 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 which thus required a warrant. I
don't think there's ever been any doubt that seizing a stored message
required a warrant. But in an old case (OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928))
the Court had held that the Fourth Amendment only protected material
things, and therefore *not* conversations monitored via a wiretap.
That decision was overturned in Katz.
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.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
