> > Councilman appealed, claiming that laws prohibiting interception did
> > not apply
> > because the messages were stored as a part of delivery to customers.
> >
> > Andrew Good, Councilman's lawyer, declined to comment on his
client's
> > motives.
> > But Good said no one ever complained about the practice and that the
case
> > resulted from a tip in an unrelated investigation.
Another instance, I have no doubt, of lawyers and jurists, being either
misinformed or devious. Storing of the messages (being queued for
delivery to a next-hop destination), is _incidental_ to the function
of
routing and forwarding message traffic, where that traffic is being sent
over a packet-switched network. The majority seems to be working
under the impression that "storage" is a "feature" of such a switched
network. Heck, even a switch can be thought of a storage device,
especially in "store-and-forward" mode (there's that word again) where
it verifies the frame FCS before sending it out the destination port.
But that's done just for data integrity.
Wouldn't this traffic actually have to be "tee'd" to a second
destination
to feed it to an actual storage device for later analysis? This changes
the whole system architecture, and doesn;t simply use existing
capability.
I suspect an informed attorney would have explained the difference
between a SVC and a PVC, and what little "storage" means in this
context. Or maybe they did and the judges zoned out then.
Lawyers trying to be technical people. Bah. Just look at the FCC trying
to mandate digital broadcasting on the AM broadcast band.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:50:59 EDT