Yes -- especially if people rely on wiretap-enabled certificates from their
ISPs....
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
Maybe Phil Zimmerman should come forth with new toys
for big boys that will be more valient an effort than
pgp with less a threat to his personal liberty. We
definately need some relief from constantly being
criminalized enmasse for actions from citizens of
other
nations and from control freaks who have for years
slandered us and criminalized us for actions we have
not participated in.
-Henry
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 Edwards wrote:
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.
That is, at any time (the phrase "seconds or mili-seconds" [sic]) that
the transmission is not actually on a wire.
Switches, routers, and any intermediate computers are fair game for
warrantless wiretaps.
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.
Obviously, you didn't read the opinion. Most important, read the
very nicely written dissent. The dissenting judge used the correct
terms, referenced RFCs, and in general knew what he was talking about --
unlike the 2:1 majority!
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1383-01A.pdf
"... Under Councilman's narrow interpretation of the Act, the
Government would no longer need to obtain a court-authorized wiretap
order to conduct such surveillance. This would effectuate a dramatic
change in Justice Department policy and mark a significant reduction
in the public's right to privacy.
" Such a change would not, however, be limited to the interception
of e-mails. Under Councilman's approach, the government would be free
to intercept all wire and electronic communications that are in
temporary electronic storage without having to comply with the Wiretap
Act's procedural protections. That means that the Government could
install taps at telephone company switching stations to monitor phone
conversations that are temporarily "stored" in electronic routers
during transmission. "
[page 51-52]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
William Allen Simpson wrote:
James Edwards wrote:
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.
Can someone point out, please, that CPUs have kilometers of 'wires', ram
have 'wires', and if anybody does any copying of data, its on the WIRES
of the motherboard (or whatever applies) 'data (WIRE) BUS' ? 
Can we say fibers are 'optical wires' ? or we are open to 'fiber taps'?
That is, at any time (the phrase "seconds or mili-seconds" [sic]) that
the transmission is not actually on a wire.
CPU and RAM do not work without wires afaik. One can't copy anything
from RAM without transmitting it on wires (even if they are short
enough, they are wires). (we dont have working biocomputers or photon
computers deployed on those hosts yet, I hope
Switches, routers, and any intermediate computers are fair game for
warrantless wiretaps.
Same as above, with the question about 'optical wires' for the fibers
(Maybe we need to point out what computers are made from?
Cya
Evaldo
Can someone point out, please, that CPUs have kilometers of 'wires', ram
have 'wires', and if anybody does any copying of data, its on the WIRES
of the motherboard (or whatever applies) 'data (WIRE) BUS' ?
You should read the entire courts desicion, this issue is addressed. The
Wire Tap
Act is very specific on what the "wire" is and also the Act was written
decades ago, prior
to PC's being everywhere.
* hrlinneweh@sbcglobal.net (Henry Linneweh) [Thu 01 Jul 2004, 15:01 CEST]:
Maybe Phil Zimmerman should come forth with new toys
for big boys that will be more valient an effort than
pgp with less a threat to his personal liberty.
You may not have been paying attention, but PGP Inc.'s _PGP Universe_ is
that. Sorta.
-- Niels.