Comments on: Anticipatory Electronic Surveillance in Anglo-American Law http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/01/anticipatory-electronic-surveillance-in-anglo-american-law/ Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:18:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Clare http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/01/anticipatory-electronic-surveillance-in-anglo-american-law/comment-page-1/#comment-59 Clare Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:46:36 +0000 http://www.stanford.edu/group/stlr/cgi-bin/wp/?p=243#comment-59 I'm not seeing the distinction that lawmakers used initially. Are they saying that simply recording the date, time, origin and destination of a communication is less intrusive that capturing the actual communication? To me, that's a difference of very few degrees. I’m not seeing the distinction that lawmakers used initially. Are they saying that simply recording the date, time, origin and destination of a communication is less intrusive that capturing the actual communication? To me, that’s a difference of very few degrees.

]]> By: Jason Falk http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/01/anticipatory-electronic-surveillance-in-anglo-american-law/comment-page-1/#comment-63 Jason Falk Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:34:50 +0000 http://www.stanford.edu/group/stlr/cgi-bin/wp/?p=243#comment-63 Electronic surveillance unfortunately is a modern "necessary" evil. It is a balancing act and the benefits have pluses and minuses. I think having so much personal stored data is a real concern but without it society becomes unstable in other ways. Electronic surveillance unfortunately is a modern “necessary” evil. It is a balancing act and the benefits have pluses and minuses. I think having so much personal stored data is a real concern but without it society becomes unstable in other ways.

]]> By: Eric Chan http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/01/anticipatory-electronic-surveillance-in-anglo-american-law/comment-page-1/#comment-47 Eric Chan Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:56:02 +0000 http://www.stanford.edu/group/stlr/cgi-bin/wp/?p=243#comment-47 Richard, You suggest shifting focus away from "where" the data were acquired and towards "how intrusive" the means of collection was. This sounds great, but how do we reconcile it with the statutory scheme? Namely, by getting the Wiretap Act's protections to cover certain kinds of e-mail monitoring, however, doesn't it obliterate the Stored Communication Act's statutory distinction between electronic "storage" and "transit" in the process? I don't know that much about this area -- can a communication be covered by both the Wiretap Act and the SCA? (Did the First Circuit en banc court in <em>Councilman</em> imply this?) Looking forward to today's panel. Richard,

You suggest shifting focus away from “where” the data were acquired and towards “how intrusive” the means of collection was. This sounds great, but how do we reconcile it with the statutory scheme? Namely, by getting the Wiretap Act’s protections to cover certain kinds of e-mail monitoring, however, doesn’t it obliterate the Stored Communication Act’s statutory distinction between electronic “storage” and “transit” in the process?

I don’t know that much about this area — can a communication be covered by both the Wiretap Act and the SCA? (Did the First Circuit en banc court in Councilman imply this?)

Looking forward to today’s panel.

]]>