Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)

[Somebody]

Bob,

Technically, since their signal speed is slower than light, even
transmission lines act as storage devices.

Wire tapping is now legal.


<Somebody>
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com>
To: Clippable <rah at shipwright.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short
Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)


>
> --- begin forwarded text
>
>
> Status: RO
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 14:27:00 -0500
> To: Tim Dierks <tim at dierks.org>, "R. A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com>,
>    cryptography at wasabisystems.com
> From: "Ronald L. Rivest" <rivest at mit.edu>
> 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.
>
> If things continue in this direction, we will soon have
> rulings and regulations that say:
>
>      -- Carriers must put all calls in storage for a minimum
>         period of time, sufficient to allow wiretapping.
>         (Indeed, regulation may not be necessary, as digitization and
>          buffering of communications is common practice; the
>          transient use of storage to effect communications
>          efficiency and reliability should not provide a wiretap
>          loophole.)
>
>      -- Wiretapping is OK for any phone calls that are routed
>         through a satellite.
>
>      -- It is OK for the government to house soldiers in your
>         house, as long as there is even the tiniest opening somewhere in
>         your house (e.g. a window open, or a chimney flue)
>         so that "inside" and "outside" connect.
>
>      -- Etc.
>
> I can also see a market developing for "storage-free" communications
> carriers.  What happens when you inquire of your carrier as to
> whether it can provide such a guarantee or option?
>
>          Cheers,
>          Ron
>
> At 09:42 PM 3/1/2003, Tim Dierks wrote:
> >At 01:39 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> >>At 9:01 AM -0500 on 2/27/03, BNA Highlights wrote:
> >> > WIRETAP ACT DOES NOT COVER MESSAGE 'IN STORAGE' FOR SHORT
> >> > PERIOD
> >> > BNA's Electronic Commerce & Law Report reports that a
> >> > federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that the federal
> >> > Wiretap Act does not prohibit the improper acquisition of
> >> > electronic communications that were "in storage" no matter
> >> > how ephemeral that storage may be. The court relied on Konop
> >> > v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc., which held that no Wiretap Act
> >> > violation occurs when an electronic communication is
> >> > accessed while in storage, "even if the interception takes
> >> > place during a nanosecond 'juncture' of storage along the
> >> > path of transmission."  Case name is U.S. v. Councilman.
> >> > Article at
> >> > <http://pubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/eip.nsf/is/a0a6m6y1k8>
> >> > For a free trial to source of this story, visit
> >> > http://web.bna.com/products/ip/eplr.htm
> >
> >This would seem to imply to me that the wiretap act does not apply to any
> >normal telephone conversation which is carried at any point in its
transit
> >by an electronic switch, including all cell phone calls and nearly all
> >wireline calls, since any such switch places the data of the ongoing call
> >in "storage" for a tiny fraction of a second.
> >
> >  - Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The Cryptography Mailing List
> >Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to
> >majordomo at wasabisystems.com
>
> Ronald L. Rivest
> Room 324, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139
> Tel 617-253-5880, Fax 617-258-9738, Email <rivest at mit.edu>
>
> --- end forwarded text
>
>
> --
> -----------------
> R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
> "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
> [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
> experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
>

--- end forwarded text


-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com