Federal Judge: Keystroke Logging Isn't Wiretapping

TospenJ writes "A federal judge in Los Angeles has dismissed wiretapping charges against a California man who used a hardware keystroke logger to spy on his employer, SecurityFocus is reporting. The court ruled that the device doesn't violate the federal Wiretap Act because it only intercepted signals off a keyboard cable, not an interstate network. The government is asking for reconsideration. Ironically, the judge relied in part on the Scarfo precedent, which allowed the FBI to use such a keylogger without a wiretap warrant."

Comments

Re:Wire

[bsartist]

You understand the word wire just fine - you do not understand the word federal. Federal law applies if the wire crosses state lines - so if your PC is in California and your keyboard in Nevada, federal wiretap law would apply.

Note that the judge specifically stated that the federal law does not apply here - if California has any laws regarding wire tapping, those still might apply.

Re:Ironic?

[tsm_sf]

Yeah, pretty logical too. A key logger isn't a sniffer.

It's not up to the judge to (in a case like this) rule on the moral guilt of the defendant, but just to determine if they've broken the applicible law. Now is when we'd see the legislative branch of our government swing into action, were it not populated by scum-sucking filth.

Re:Ironic?

[Pluralization Troll]

You're incorrect spelling of precedent, however, is not unexpected turn, and therefore not ironic.

Neither is your incorrect use of the contraction of "you are" in place of the possessive pronoun, "your."

Re:Fossils on the Bench

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insightful? Jesus, somebody spend some mod points and mod this sucker down.

Judges, especially federal judges, have to know not only federal law (and law ain't just statutory--it also covers case law, administrative law, regulatory law, and executive orders) but also state laws of any states within the area covered physically by their federal jurisdiction in case they are sitting on a diversity or removal case. That's a shit load of knowledge and should be given maybe a modicum more respect. It's certain he knows more about computers than you do about law.

Now, let's see...did you read the relevant statute? No....ahhh, I see. So you really don't know what constitutes interstate communication. And without reading ALL relevant federal case law, you really don't know at what point the courts consider interstate communication to begin, and gee you haven't done that either.

RTFA and maybe you'll see that the judge knows a bit about computers ehh...look where he's located for chrissakes....the judge's ruling is pretty straightforward analysis.

Try learning something for a change rather than the reflexive knee-jerk "Judges don't understand computers" or "Lawyers suck". If you go into it with the attitude "I don't know how the judge applies the law" you might learn something, and you know, not be a total fucking clown-shoe.

Your sig needs revising, somehow.

[farmhick]

First off, Dr. Spock was the doctor in the US in the 1950's who wrote books on how to raise children. He might have heard the term 'stardate', and maybe even knew what it referred to. However, I doubt he will be making quotes when 'stardate 2822.3' rolls around. Having died in 1998 and all.

Now if you meant Mr. Spock, first officer of the starship USS Enterprise, also know as NCC-1701, I still doubt you are being accurate. After all why would a Vulcan find it enlightening to quote a Jedi Master? Especially one who existed long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

From thinkgeek.com

[mansa]

In case you were looking, here's the device.

Have fun with your self-styled "security experts" at work!