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] -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32