What ticks *me* off is that the DHS is probably capturing every packet that enters and leaves every computer in the US, we're paying for it, but if the disk crashes can't restore from their archives.

I mean, it's the LEAST they could do...

The courts need to get very specific when dealing with a technology issue like this. It is not like a telephone and wire tap. There are split up packets, stored data, IP addresses in headers, header information, time and date stamps, packet routes etc... that need to be addressed. You might be able to state that I can not ask an ISP to hand over someone's email, but what if I want to intercept the packets? What if I want to match emails with IP address info and track to whom emails are sent? What if I just want a log of time and date of all traffic? How long can a server keep email against the wishes of the user? Can a ISP be compelled to keep email on its mail server past the standard monthly dump? Lots of technical questions that need to be addressed by informed courts. We may need a separate court system to deal with technological issues as most judges don't have the background for highly technical decisions. The Microsoft anti-trust case was a harbinger of problems to come.

There is nothing new in this decision. In fact, it reflects the requirements of the Electronic Comminucations Privacy Act (ECPA) of the 1990s.

Nor should it be overturned, as it is in no wise new -- or news -- though some may not have known of the ECPA. It doesn't, though, surprise that few on line know of that law, in view of the fact that they tend to believe and swallow and perpetuate the fraudulent pseudo-law against copyright by means of which outright theft is rationalized as "information wants to be free [except for that I own]".

"Judges with law degrees will not know how to rule on highly complex tech issues."

According to whom? Those who are new to such law?

"The courts need to get very specific when dealing with a technology issue like this."

They have and do.

"It is not like a telephone and wire tap. There are split up packets, stored data, IP addresses in headers, header information, time and date stamps, packet routes etc... that need to be addressed."

Yawn.

"You might be able to state that I can not ask an ISP to hand over someone's email, but what if I want to intercept the packets?"

Do wiretaps "turn over" the conversation? Or do they intercept them?

Again, none of this is new, either in statute or court decisions.

"What if I want to match emails with IP address info and track to whom emails are sent? What if I just want a log of time and date of all traffic? How long can a server keep email against the wishes of the user? Can a ISP be compelled to keep email on its mail server past the standard monthly dump? Lots of technical questions that need to be addressed by informed courts."

Then again, those questions aren't relevant unless they are the questions before the court in a given case. In this instance they weren't relevant.

But to know the law on this, and its answers to those questions, one must read the actual statutes and case decisions. Failing that, one will "cleverly" raise questions which are (1) irrelevant ot the instant case, and (2) which have already been answered in statute an/or case law.

"We may need a separate court system to deal with technological issues as most judges don't have the background for highly technical decisions."

False on both counts. In addition, it is the responsibility of the lawyers for the parties to clearly present in their briefings all relevant technical information (regardless field) informing or upon which is based their position and or argument/s.

"The Microsoft anti-trust case was a harbinger of problems to come."

In what ways?

-- The Voice of Reason