[12626] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Dierks)
Wed Mar 5 18:52:18 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:40:20 -0500
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>,
"R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com>
From: Tim Dierks <tim@dierks.org>
Cc: cryptography@wasabisystems.com, cypherpunks@lne.com,
"Ronald L. Rivest" <rivest@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20030305193054.18B187B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>
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 majordomo@wasabisystems.com
