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
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 Vo
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
>
