[2806] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
ECPA, WIRETAPPING & REGULATION
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (JIM DOWNEY)
Fri Jun 5 11:54:06 1992
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 11:51 EST
From: JIM DOWNEY <JDOWNEY@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
To: com-priv@psi.com
X-Vms-To: in%"com-priv@psi.com"
Date sent:
In a previous article, drw@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU wrote:
>Message sent: Wed, 3 Jun 92 12:04:42 EDT.
>
> From: mingo@world.std.com (Charles H Mingo)
>
> Section 2510 (12) defines "electronic communication" as
>
> any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data,
> or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or part by wire,
> radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system
> that affects interstate or foreign commerce...
>
>Although this is restricted to things that affect interstate or
>foreign commerce. Do the laws on wiretapping have a similar
>restriction? And what is its practical legal effect?
The restriction is actually non-existent... The fed has had several rulings
indicating jurisdiction exists on any line that carries interstate calls. This
applies for the ECPA and the wiretapping law (18 USCA 2510 et seq. and 18 USCA
2511 et seq.) I refer those interested in the ECPA applications to Thompson v.
Pretaina. Court cases 267 US 132, 393 US 410, & 378 US 108 for issues on
wiretapping.
*****************************************************************
| James M. Downey (INTERNET) JDOWNEY@ECN.MASS.EDU |
| Salem State College (FIDONET) Jim Downey 1:324/0 SHAKERS |
| 352 Lafayette St. (VOICE) (617) 592-8257 Ans. Machine |
| Salem, MA 01970 Executive Technical Director **NETTI** |
*****************************************************************
