nanog mailing list archives
Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
From: James Edwards <hackerwacker () cybermesa com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 00:13:29 -0600
It seems to me all the court said is you cannot use the Wire Tap Act in a case that the communication is not on the wire. The court did note the they felt this Act needs updating. They indicated the Act was very specific and they did not feel extending the Act to cover e-mail in the conditions mentioned was something they could do, without new law to guide them. The court did not rubber stamp "e-mail snooping". This case can be argued on other grounds. But many of those seem to be a grey areas. -- James H. Edwards Routing and Security At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa jamesh () cybermesa com noc () cybermesa com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible Henry Linneweh (Jun 30)
- Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible James Edwards (Jun 30)
- Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible William Allen Simpson (Jul 01)
- Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible Eric Brunner-Williams (Jul 01)
- Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible Evaldo Gardenali (Jul 01)
- Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible james edwards (Jul 01)
- Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible William Allen Simpson (Jul 01)
- Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible James Edwards (Jun 30)
- Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible Niels Bakker (Jul 01)