Re: Disturbing statistics on wiretaps
It should be noted that although it is illegal for the cops/feds/spooks to tap phone lines without a warrant, only illegally-obtained voice communications are inadmissible in court. This means that fax and modem communications can be illegally intercepted and STILL used in court against you. Stig ;; __________________________________________________________________________ ;; Stig@netcom.com netcom.com:/pub/stig/00-PGP-KEY ;; It's hard to be cutting-edge at your own pace... 32 DF B9 19 AE 28 D1 7A ;; Bullet-proof code cannot stand up to teflon bugs. A3 9D 0B 1A 33 13 4D 7F
Stig writes:
It should be noted that although it is illegal for the cops/feds/spooks to tap phone lines without a warrant, only illegally-obtained voice communications are inadmissible in court. This means that fax and modem communications can be illegally intercepted and STILL used in court against you.
The same is true of e-mail over the Internet--there is no statutory exclusionary rule that would prvent its admissibility in court. It is at least theoretically possible, however, to exclude illegally seized communications of these sorts using a "pure 4th Amendment" (nonstatutory) exclusionary rule. Don't hold your breath, though. --Mike
Mike Godwin writes:
Stig writes:
are inadmissible in court. This means that fax and modem communications can be illegally intercepted and STILL used in court against you.
The same is true of e-mail over the Internet--there is no statutory exclusionary rule that would prvent its admissibility in court. It is at least theoretically possible, however, to exclude illegally seized communications of these sorts using a "pure 4th Amendment" (nonstatutory) exclusionary rule.
Don't hold your breath, though.
I don't think e-mail over the Intenet will ever be used in court since anyone capable of reading the RFC would be able to forge email. So, anyone could claim that the email being used as evidence is a forgery _and_ be able to prove it by doing it or demonstrating it. At least, I think this would be a way to get it thrown out. :-) I'm not a lawyer, I don't even pretend to be one on MUD. Allan
Allan writes:
I don't think e-mail over the Intenet will ever be used in court since anyone capable of reading the RFC would be able to forge email. So, anyone could claim that the email being used as evidence is a forgery _and_ be able to prove it by doing it or demonstrating it.
This is not how evidence works. The fact that Internet mail can be forged may cast doubt on the authenticity of a message, but it wouldn't result in its inadmissibility. The jury can make its own decision about whether the mail is authentic, based on full information about the possibility of forgery. --Mike
participants (3)
-
allan＠elvis.tamu.edu -
Mike Godwin -
stig＠netcom.com