The byzantine mazes of judicial decision making in respect to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (1986)--ECPA--has not been conclusively decided other than controversy of the Wire Tap Act (Title I) and its skewed relation with the Stored Communication Act (Title II) in U.S. v. Councilman. The controversial case, U.S. v. Councilman is not all together clear as to what e-mail transmissions are protected in contradistinction to when it is stored in ISP storage. The technological legal jurisprudence is very much lacking in drawing the line between the Wire Tap Act provisions and Stored Communication Act Provisions. Since there have been no landmark Supreme Court precedent in regard to Electronic Mail Interception, the courts have been left in murky, if not "swamp" lands to provide legal remedies in which there is no 4th Amendment protections for search and seizures, and legal remedies. This is an uncharted, and yet to be seen area of contest between the state, and all who seek a shield for privacy protections. It is coin toss in the technological jurisprudence of computer surveillance.
R.S.Y. Kim
No comments:
Post a Comment