[15677] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
US Court says no privacy in wiretap law
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Allen Simpson)
Thu Jul 1 17:06:54 2004
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:18:29 -0400
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
To: "Cryptography (moderated)" <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Switches, routers, and any intermediate computers are fair game for
warrantless wiretaps.
That is, at any time (the phrase "seconds or mili-seconds" [sic]) that
the transmission is not actually on a wire.
Most important, read the very nicely written dissent. The dissenting
judge used the correct terms, referenced RFCs, and in general knew what
he was talking about -- unlike the 2:1 majority!
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1383-01A.pdf
"... Under Councilman's narrow interpretation of the Act, the
Government would no longer need to obtain a court-authorized wiretap
order to conduct such surveillance. This would effectuate a dramatic
change in Justice Department policy and mark a significant reduction
in the public's right to privacy.
" Such a change would not, however, be limited to the interception
of e-mails. Under Councilman's approach, the government would be free
to intercept all wire and electronic communications that are in
temporary electronic storage without having to comply with the Wiretap
Act's procedural protections. That means that the Government could
install taps at telephone company switching stations to monitor phone
conversations that are temporarily "stored" in electronic routers
during transmission. "
[page 51-52]
As this is a US Court of Appeals, it sets precedent that other courts
will use, and directly applies to all ISPs in the NE US.
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
