more on Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage'

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: 
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage'

** Dave, PLEASE remove my name/all identifying info if you post this.
   I have colleagues who don't see why the right result here is a
   privacy-protective outcome.


+ ------ Forwarded Message
+ From: "Ronald L. Rivest" <rivest () mit edu>
+ Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 14:27:00 -0500
+ To: Tim Dierks <tim () dierks org>, "R. A. Hettinga" <rah () shipwright com>,
+ cryptography () wasabisystems com
+ Subject: Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short
+ Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
+ 
+ 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.

Note that the federal government argued for the contrary result.  DOJ
conceded that if it were to do what this defendant is accused of doing
(basically, installing an extra mail-forwarding rule), it would need a
wiretap order.  Prosecutors argued that ongoing collection of incoming
email essentially simultaneously with its arrival on the server was
the "functional equivalent" of a wiretap, and should be treated the
same way to preserve Congress's intent.

------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/