k wrote:
] ] Authorities charged Councilman with violating the Wiretap
] ] Act, which governs unauthorized interception of
] ] communication. But the court found that because the
] ] e-mails were already in the random access memory, or RAM,
] ] of the defendant's computer system when he copied them,
] ] he did not intercept them while they were in transit over
] ] wires and therefore did not violate the Wiretap Act, even
] ] though he copied the messages before the intended
] ] recipients read them. The court ruled that the messages
] ] were in storage rather than transit.
]
] [ Is this total bullshit, or should they have gone after this
] guy under a different guise? What if the guy had a clickthru
] when people signed up that any email coming to that address
] may be read and that they have no expectation of privacy on
] that system?
]
] Seems to me like he should have done the latter, if indeed he
] didn't, and that this interpretation of the law is exceedingly
] narrow, and wrong. But, of course, I'm no lawyer. -k]

The actual decision is more disturbing than the wired article:

There is little protection given to any sort of electronic communications, which leaves open to dispute (although I can hope the courts would rule differently) the issue of VoIP. It could be surmised that ISPs, or transit providers could legally tap or forward communications to a third party be it a government body, or otherwise under the premise that they are stored temporarily in router memory.

RE: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible