Traditional definitions of interception do not fully apply to electronic communications because past laws before the Patriot Act only allowed collection of phone numbers dialed, not content, and saw phone and internet communications differently. The Patriot Act expanded surveillance powers by allowing law enforcement to access stored electronic and some stored wire communications, and reduced requirements to get warrants for surveillance related to terrorism and computer crimes. It also enabled roving surveillance when a target's actions may hinder identification.
Why are traditional definitions of “interception” problematic when a.pdf
1. Why are traditional definitions of “interception” problematic when applying them to electronic
communications?
Solution
The solution provided is in accordance to US Cyber law
tradationally prior to the passage of the patriot act provided for the collection and/or recording
of number diales, in fact, content of communication were specifically precluded by previous
legislation whereas Title II of the act specifically provides for the disclosure of communication
content,reduce tradational requirement of probable cause, and equates telephone and internet
communcations .
Glimpse of Title II and Electronic Survellance
Section 201 and Section 202 : expanded the authority to intercept wire,orla and electronic
communication to crimes of terrorism and computer crimes whereas before this in Patriot Act,
law enforcement had access to stores electronic communication but not to stored wire
communication.
Section 206 amended FISA to provide for roving surveillance in situtations where action of the
target may thwart the investigation or identification of persons.