[Mimedefang] email wiretap (an additional twist).

[Michael Sofka]

On Tuesday 16 March 2004 15:09, Royce Williams wrote:

> As I understand it, the message has to be "in transit" for it to be
> considered a wire tap.  Our local law enforcement had to have a search
> warrant to get the contents of someone's mail spool, but a Federal
> wiretap order to get us to show them packet sniffing of inbound mail.
> In that context, someone's voice mail, having already arrived at the
> destination, would not require wiretap-grade authorization.  A search
> warrant would be sufficient to get access to it.

Until quite recently the FBI considered mail on the queue data,
unless it was under N days old, and has not been ``read'' by a client.
A very recent court case has cast doubt on this interpretation, and even
spooled email may now require a wiretap warrent (pending appeals, etc.)

No doubt there are similar rules regarding voice mail left on answering
machines.  And, unlike email, voice mail has been around long enough that
there may be court cases regarding those interpretations.  VoIP to email,
is too new for there to be any such clarity.

> Also, as I understand it, you have the right to monitor your own network
> and facilities.  It's the rules/laws that govern disclosure to others
> that are the clincher.

But, the circumstances of that monitoring are limited to repair,
system integrity, trouble shooting in course of job, etc.  Unless
you post a "your actions may be monitored" banner.  However, such
banners have their downside.  The FBI may show up and say ``let us
see the files,'' and when you reply ``but that's private,'' they
can counter with ``no it isn't, your banner says so right there.''

Mike
(Also waving a big IANAL(AIDPOOTV) flag.)

-- 
Michael D. Sofka              sofkam at rpi.edu
C&CT Sr. Systems Programmer    Email, TeX, epistemology.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.  http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/