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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
