Right and wrong aside, isn't this "wiretapping" in most states?

Question

http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Geek_uses_packet_sniffer_to_catch_his_girlfriend_cheating

http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/29db9/2d513/2d815/2d845?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_18-9-303

Let's break it down by elements:
8-9-303. Wiretapping prohibited - penalty.
Statute text

(1) Any PERSON NOT a SENDER or intended RECEIVER of a telephone or telegraph communication commits wiretapping if he:

(a) Knowingly OVERHEARS, READS, TAKES, COPIES, or records a telephone, telegraph, or ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION WITHOUT the CONSENT of either a SENDER or a RECEIVER thereof or attempts to do so; or

8-9-303. Wiretapping prohibited - penalty.
Statute text
(b) Intentionally overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing or aiding or abetting the commission of an unlawful act; or

(c) Knowingly uses for any purpose or discloses to any person the contents of any such communication, or attempts to do so, while knowing or having reason to know the information was obtained in violation of this section; or

skipping...
2) Wiretapping is a class 6 felony; except that, if the wiretapping involves a cordless telephone, it is a class 1 misdemeanor.

OK thanks Coragryph:
One more question.
Does it in your opinion defy the spirit of the law?

Ok I lied two more questions.
Isn't it nearly impossible to write a law that covers all eventualities?

Answer 1

Packet sniffers are not usually wiretapping in much the same way that catching broadcast cell phone signals is not wiretapping.

If the packet is being broadcast over a network, or the cell phone signal is being broadcast between the phone and the tower, then it is considered publicly available to anyone with appropriate technology.

Now, different sets of laws (by state or federal) impose specific restrictions on what technology may be used, and what types of communications may be intercepted. So, it all depends on the legal definitions and the jurisdictions involved.

As far as your example and the news story, it also depends on the specific network protocols and routing methods being used. Many type of networks use a broadband physical protocol, where every packet is sent to every computer on the network, which then determines based on information in the packet envelope whether that computer cares about the packet contents or not. In that model, each computer on the network is arguably the "recipient", since each receives a copy of the packet and each can then determine what to do with the packet.

That's the problem with poorly written laws -- there are too many ways to argue whether they do or do not apply in a given situation.

Answer 2

Yes and no. When there is no expectation of privacy then I would declare it is not wiretapping. The Internet is a public network where private computers connect to one another.

Companies that run private networks that connect to the Internet do so through a secured firewall. This alone is enough to claim that the privacy of these computers is expected. When a home PC connects, privacy is never guaranteed. True that hacking into a persons computer here in America is a violation of federal law, nowhere does it say that I cannot set a sniffer to listen on IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx since the data is sent over public wires. It's much like the argument used for public radio, public TV and satellite signals. If something is sent "in the clear" such as text messaging, it's fair game.

Now I seem to recall little noise about Echelon when it was enacted during Clinton's term. It monitored electronic communications without a warrant.

Answer 3

I have no idea what "Ethereal" program is, but it doesnt appear to be a program that records telecommunications, which would be a requirement for "wiretapping" laws.
Even if it is a wiretap, the laws do differ by state. The key element would be, in who's name is the phone listed? Most states allow you to tape phone conversations on your own phone without the 2nd party's consent or knowledge. Some do not (MD for example). If the phone is listed in his name, he can tap it, without the knowledge of his partner or her conversant, in most states.

Answer 4

Apparently like most things in life things are done for something referred to as "the greater good".

Answer 5

I guess because this will never go to a court of law it really does not matter.

Answer 6

Perhaps if they had made a commitment to marry each other, this would have never happened.