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
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
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
Yes, I was amazed at this ruling as well.
This ruling seems to fly in the face of the likely intent of
Congress when it passed Wiretap Act.
If things continue in this direction, we will soon have
rulings and regulations that say:
-- Carriers must put all calls in storage for a minimum
p
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 ruled that the federal
> Wiretap Ac
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 prohibit the improper acquisition of
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
