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 --- "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com> wrote:

In message <s0e2b1f2.059@fstest05.fb>, "John Neiberger" writes:

...

http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,64043,00.html

Yet another reason why we should develop a system

where all Internet

...

communications can be easily encrypted, whether it's email, VoIP, or whatever. It's not like it's horribly difficult now in some cases, but it does have its difficulties when it comes to implementation on a large scale.

Yes -- especially if people rely on wiretap-enabled certificates from their ISPs....

--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

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

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. -- James H. Edwards Routing and Security At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa jamesh@cybermesa.com noc@cybermesa.com (505) 795-7101