Talk:United States v. Councilman

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

additional citation needed:

On August 11, 2005, the /en banc/ First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Councilman could be prosecuted under the Wiretap Act.

In an earlier decision by a three judge panel, the First Circuit reached the opposite conclusion and dismissed the charges against Councilman, holding that because the emails were in "electronic storage" when copied and rerouted by Counciman, they could not be "intercepted" under the Wiretap Act. But by interpreting the Wiretap Act's privacy protections narrowly, the court effectively gave Internet communications providers free rein to invade the privacy of their users for any reason and at any time. As the panel itself stated in the ruling, "it may well be that the protections of the Wiretap Act have been eviscerated as technology advances."

After several groups, including EFF, filed briefs supporting the government's petition for a new hearing, the First Circuit granted a rehearing of the case before all the judges in the circuit. The full court's new decision makes clear that even though emails are stored in computer memory during transmission, it is still criminal for an email provider--or anyone else--to secretly intercept them.

The case was remanded back to the district court for trial, and Councilman was acquitted [on other grounds] in February 2007. However, the First Circuit's decision on the meaning of the law still stands.

above reference: http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/US_v_Councilman/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSinVA (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]