Privacy Protections for Communications Intercepted in Transmission
Lawful Access to Communications Under the Wiretap Act and Under
The Wiretap Act, updated by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), prohibits the intentional interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication The term "intercept" is specifically defined within the Wiretap Act to encompass these actions.
The Wiretap Act establishes a procedure for the lawful interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications under judicial supervision for serious crimes This process is more stringent than the typical Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, often referred to as a "super" warrant Law enforcement officers must submit a court application that includes a sworn statement of facts from an independent investigation to justify the need for interception.
To effectively obtain authorization for communication interception, it is essential to provide specific details regarding the offense being committed, including the nature and location of the facilities involved Additionally, a clear description of the types of communications targeted for interception is necessary, along with the identity of the individual, if known, who is committing the offense and whose communications are to be monitored.
Further, the requesting officer must declare "whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they
32 Kerr, A User's Guide, supra note 18, at 1232.
374 HASTINGS COMMJENT L.J [32:3 reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous '' 3 4
The judge reviewing the application may issue a time-limited order 35 permitting interception if it is found that
Probable cause must exist to believe that an individual is involved in serious criminal activity, that specific communications related to the offense can be intercepted, and that traditional investigative methods have been attempted but have proven ineffective or too risky to pursue.
In contrast, the SCA addresses access to protected stored communications, rather than interception of in-transit communications 37 Penalties are set forth for whoever
Unauthorized access to a facility providing electronic communication services occurs when an individual intentionally gains access without permission or exceeds their granted authorization This action can lead to the unauthorized retrieval, alteration, or prevention of access to wire or electronic communications stored electronically.
However, there is no crime, or parallel civil action, where the access is
Authorization for communication may be granted by individuals other than the parties involved, including service providers or users regarding their own communications This process can be less stringent than the interception procedures outlined in the Wiretap Act.
To access stored electronic communications for 180 days or less, individuals must obtain a court-supervised warrant This process involves fewer privacy safeguards compared to communications that are more protected, highlighting the need for careful consideration of privacy rights during legal proceedings.
40 Id See also supra notes 32-36. under the Wiretap Act 4 " Stored communications within a 180-day period may be accessed "pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offence under investigation or equivalent state warrant.,1 2 Those rules are less onerous than the wiretap "super" warrant procedure described above The law enforcement investigator seeking access to the communications may obtain the warrant upon a probable cause showing that the material sought is likely to provide evidence of a crime, 3 and there is no specified list of crimes limiting the scope of such an order, unlike the list in the Wiretap Act."4 The applicant is not required to show that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, or are unlikely to succeed, or are too dangerous Congress has also instituted a reporting requirement for wiretap warrants, 45 mandating recordkeeping and public access to those records, but has not done so for access to stored communications.
If the communication has been in electronic storage for more than
A governmental agent can access wire or electronic communication content for up to 180 days by obtaining a subpoena or court order, provided there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Statutory Exclusion of Evidence Under the Wiretap Act and Under
The Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act (SCA) provide robust civil enforcement remedies alongside criminal penalties for unauthorized privacy violations in communications Most legal interpretations of the Wiretap Act's privacy protections occur within the criminal justice system, where defendants seek to suppress evidence based on violations of the Act's procedures.
48 Orin S Kerr, Lifting the "Fog" of Internet Surveillance: How a Suppression Remedy Would Change Computer Crime Law, 54 HASTINGS L.J 805 824 (2003)[hereinafter Kerr, Lifting the "Fog"]
The Wiretap Act strictly prohibits the use of unlawfully obtained wire or oral communications as evidence, highlighting Congress's intent to treat privacy violations differently for these types of communications compared to stored or electronic communications without human voices The lack of exclusionary remedies for unlawful access to data suggests a concern that law enforcement may misuse wiretaps on voice communications more than on data This distinction may indicate that Congress prioritizes the privacy of oral communications in transit over that of data and stored communications, reflecting a higher expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment Although there was significant support in Congress for enhancing privacy protections in the ECPA in 2000, including extending suppression remedies to non-voice electronic communications, the legislative history remains unclear on these distinctions.
Under 18 U.S.C § 2515 (2006), any intercepted wire or oral communication, along with any evidence obtained from it, cannot be admitted in court if revealing that information would breach the legal provisions outlined in this chapter.
51 House Committee Delays Adoption of Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
TECH L.J., Sept 22, 2000, available at http://www.techlawjournal.com/privacy/20000922.asp.
Currently, only illegally obtained "wire and oral communications" are excluded from use as evidence by statute H.R 5018 would amend the
"statutory exclusionary rule" to also exclude from use as evidence illegally intercepted "electronic communications" and illegally obtained
"electronic communications in electronic storage," namely stored e-mail messages, resulting from violations [of] the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2000, H.R REP No 106-932, at 15-16 (2000).
[32:3 proposal died as the Clinton administration ended, and was not revived the following year when terrorism concerns, raised by the events of September 11, 2001, drained support for privacy law extension 3
Scholars advocate for the implementation of an exclusionary rule to address unlawful intrusions into stored communications They contend that civil litigation has typically been the primary response to violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), leading to judicial interpretations that shape its application.
53 Sandra McKay, The Evolution of Online Privacy: 2000-2003, J LEGAL, ETHICAL
AND REG ISSUES, at 4-5 (2003), available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mlTOS/is26/ ai n25080548/?tag=content;coll.
A recent FTC survey revealed that only 20 percent of websites and less than half of the top 100 popular sites adhere to recognized fair information practices, like providing users with opt-out options In response, the agency urged Congress to implement laws that would create standardized practices for the collection and usage of online data to better protect consumers.
In the lead-up to September 11, 2001, legislators introduced numerous privacy bills in Congress, aiming to address growing concerns about Internet privacy Following a 2000 Congressional session where many proposed bills failed to advance, there was a prevailing belief that 2001 could finally be the year to overcome the legislative deadlock surrounding Internet privacy issues.
Early 2001, privacy advocates, industry trade groups, and legislators alike believed that some federal government actions seemed unavoidable Privacy advocates saw hope in the Senate's sudden shift to
President Bush's implementation of medical privacy regulations from the Clinton era raised expectations for federal action, aiming to enhance awareness of privacy concerns The FTC continued to strongly support the introduction of new federal privacy laws Consequently, industry executives began to focus on the question of what specific issues new legislation would tackle, rather than whether such laws would be enacted.
The September 11 terrorist attacks significantly shifted the conversation around privacy and security, leading to increased demands for expanded government surveillance In the aftermath, fueled by fear and anger, many Americans prioritized enhanced security measures over personal privacy rights, opting to sacrifice some freedoms for the sake of safety in a world perceived as increasingly dangerous.
54 See generally Michael S Leib, E-mail and the Wiretap Laws: Why Congress
Should Add Electronic Communication to Title III's Statutory Exclusionary Rule and
Expressly Reject A "Good Faith" Exception, 34 HARV J ON LEGIs 393 (1997); Kerr, A User's Guide, supra note 18, at 1241-42.
The Wiretap Act exclusionary rule has been examined through the lens of balancing a criminal defendant's civil liberties against the encroachments of law enforcement, similar to how the interests of a plaintiff claiming injury are weighed against those of civil defendants.
Statutory Damages for Violation of the SCA
Congress prioritizes the protection of privacy for communications in transit over stored communications, as reflected in civil damage claims under both acts The inclusion of provisions for attorneys' fees, punitive damages, and both actual and statutory damages incentivizes civil claims to prevent unlawful access and interception of communications Statutory damages play a crucial role due to the difficulties and expenses associated with proving actual damages Specifically, the Stored Communications Act (SCA) establishes a minimum recovery of $1,000 for violations, while the Wiretap Act sets statutory damages at $10,000 per violation or $100 per day for ongoing violations, whichever is higher.
Treatment of Different Types of Communications Under the ECPA
The Wiretap Act provides a suppression remedy that prohibits the use of unlawfully obtained wiretap evidence in trials; however, this remedy is not applicable to stored communications or non-voice communications in transit The statute explicitly limits the protection to "wire or oral communication," distinguishing electronic communication as any transmission of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence via various systems that impact interstate or foreign commerce.
55 Leib, supra note 54, at 436; Kerr, A User's Guide, supra note 18, at 1241-42.
56 See Kerr, Lifting the "Fog," supra note 48, at 829.
61 Id does not include- (A)any wire or oral communication ,,62 An oral communication is defined as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication ,,63 A wire communication is defined as:
Aural transfers, whether complete or partial, utilize communication transmission facilities such as wires, cables, or similar connections between the origin and reception points This includes connections at switching stations provided by individuals or entities involved in the transmission of interstate or foreign communications, or those impacting interstate or foreign commerce.
An aural transfer refers to any communication involving the human voice, from its origin to its reception Legislative history distinguishes between "oral" communication, which is transmitted through sound waves, and "wire" communication, which is transmitted as electrical impulses via wires or devices Essentially, oral communication occurs under circumstances where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, emphasizing that it is conveyed through sound waves rather than electronic means.
In describing and protecting oral communications, the ECPA of
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 was influenced by the U.S Supreme Court's decision in Katz v United States, a 1967 case that established a standard for privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment In Katz v United States, a device was used to record conversations from a public phone booth, which led the court to exclude the recorded evidence due to a violation of the speaker's reasonable expectation of privacy This landmark case expanded the Fourth Amendment's protection beyond physical confines, setting a precedent for future privacy laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.
66 S REP NO 99-541, at 13 (1985), as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N 3555, 3567.
HASTINGS CoMMIENT L.J that one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in activities beyond the home 9
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) recognizes the evolution of voice communications beyond traditional copper wires, expanding the definition of "wire" communications to encompass all forms of voice transmission, including those carried by fiber optic cables and cellular networks This means that even when voice signals are converted to digital formats for transmission, they still qualify as wire communications The ECPA covers existing telephone services and digitized communications that contain human voice elements, regardless of their transmission methods, including private telephone systems operated by companies involved in interstate commerce.
Here is the rewritten paragraph:The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) safeguards voice communications from interception through a robust exclusionary rule, but this protection does not extend to written or non-oral content, whether in transmission or stored form Notably, the ECPA initially protected stored "voice mail," but this protection was later removed by the USA PATRIOT Act to facilitate broader surveillance following the 9/11 attacks.
69 Id at 361 ("The rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable."') (Harlan, J., concurring).
71 The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks amended subparagraph (D) to specify that wire communications in storage like voice mail, remain wire communications, and are protected accordingly Id
72 The USA PATRIOT Act amended § 2703 of the ECPA to place stored wire communications, that is, voice mail, within the ECPA provisions that apply to stored electronic communication such as e-mails USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 § 209, Pub L No. 107-56, 115 Stat 272, 283.
73 Peter P Swire, Katz is Dead Long Live Katz., 102 MICH L REV 904, 911, 915
The Stored Communications Act (SCA) offers limited protection for messages in electronic storage, defining this category narrowly According to the SCA, "electronic storage" refers to temporary, intermediate storage of wire or electronic communications during transmission, as well as any backup storage by an electronic communication service for safeguarding these communications.
The statutory distinctions in protection are influenced by the classification of the storage provider and the type of materials involved There are two categories of third parties that hold stored communications: "electronic communications service" and "remote computing service." The key difference lies in the fact that a remote computing service retains stored communications to perform operations on data, rather than simply holding it during transmission Initially, this concept was intended to address electronic data sent by owners to third parties for services like accounting and database management, which were beyond the capabilities of most business computers in 1986 By 2010, this framework would likely encompass the advancements of "Web 2.0."
75 The term "remote computing service" is defined in 18 U.S.C § 2711(2) of the SCA and "electronic communication service" is defined in 18 U.S C § 2510(15) of the Wiretap Act The distinction determines who may lawfully consent to disclosure of the message under 18 U.S.C § 2701(b)(3): a message held by an ECS can lawfully be disclosed without a warrant only to the originator and the intended recipient, while a message held in an RCS can lawfully be disclosed to the subscriber to the service as well.
The legislative history of the term "remote computing service," provides a more detailed explanation:
In today's digital era, users face a crucial decision: to process data on their own computers or utilize remote computing services Over time, remote service providers have emerged, offering advanced and convenient computing solutions to a diverse range of businesses, including hospitals and banks These services can be accessed through a time-sharing arrangement, where customers use the provider's facilities, or through processing done by the service provider based on the information supplied by the client Typically, data transmission between these services and their customers occurs via electronic communications.
S REP NO 99-541, at 10-11(1986), as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N 3555, 3564-64.
76 Kerr, A User's Guide, supra note 18, at 1215; DOJ MANUAL, supra note 18, at
Cloud computing allows users to reduce the need for powerful hardware by enabling simpler devices to operate with just browser software The Department of Justice has generally maintained that communications stored by a "remote computing service" do not qualify for "super" warrant protection like in-transit communications; instead, they are treated as records accessible through a basic subpoena or court order.
G uidin g C ases
The Department of Justice (DOJ) asserts that once an email is read, it loses its protection as a communication stored at an electronic communications service The Stored Communications Act (SCA) differentiates between communications stored with remote computing services and those held by third-party internet service providers According to the DOJ, when a recipient accesses an email, it reaches its final destination If the recipient decides to keep a copy of the accessed email on the provider's system, it is considered a remotely stored file since the transmission process has been completed.
Privacy Protection Varies with the Location and Function of the Place of
Legislation distinguishes between communications in transit and those stored, based on the time of access and the entity holding the data For communications stored with an "electronic communications service" like Yahoo! or Gmail, law enforcement must obtain a warrant grounded in probable cause, ensuring independent judicial oversight for access.
150 DOJ MANUAL, supra note 12, at 123-24.
The court in Fraser v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co determined that an email retrieved from post-transmission storage does not qualify as being in "electronic storage," thus not violating the Wiretap Act In contrast to this ruling, the DOJ references H.R REP No 99-647, which highlights Congressional intent that open emails stored on a provider's system should fall under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) provisions for remote computing services, rather than those pertaining to communications in "electronic storage."
HASTINGS COMM/ENT L.J. agents;1 53 as noted above, a Wiretap Act "super" warrant is not required because the communications are stored If the storage is in a
Remote computing services have become less secure, requiring only a subpoena or court order for access When the ECPA was enacted, businesses commonly used these services for computing power that was too costly to maintain individually Centralized servers managed data and performed complex operations, but the landscape changed dramatically over the following decades as computing costs decreased and user-friendly software emerged The current trend toward cloud computing has shifted data storage to remote services, which now offer comprehensive functionalities, including email transmission, storage, and integration with other applications like Gmail This variety of services complicates the intent behind message storage, as users may leave read emails in their accounts for search purposes rather than as backups Furthermore, privacy concerns extend beyond third-party servers to include data stored on personal devices, such as cellphones and netbooks.
In cases where delivered and stored, or unread, email has been accessed within a privately-held system, courts have looked at the
155 Kerr, A User's Guide, supra note 18, at 1213-14.
Web-based customer service software offers numerous advantages, such as increased accessibility and improved efficiency By utilizing web-enabled applications, businesses can enhance their customer support capabilities, streamline operations, and provide timely assistance to clients As emerging technologies continue to evolve, the integration of these solutions becomes essential for maintaining competitive advantage in the market For more insights, visit Helpdesk Pro.
Changing the Rules of Spacecraft Ground Support, Space Mission Operations and Ground
Data Sys - SpaceOps '96, EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY, 328, 332 (1996), available at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996ESASP.394 328B/ 0000328.000.html.
158 See Klump v Nazareth Area Sch Dist., 425 F Supp 2d 622 (E.D Pa 2006) See also infra note 185.
The Stored Communications Act (SCA) differentiates between "remote computing services" and "electronic communication services," offering varying levels of protection for information This distinction was emphasized in the 2008 Ninth Circuit case, Quon v Arch Wireless, which examined the implications of accessing information under the SCA.
In the case of Operating Co v Arch, the court analyzed the ISP's role to determine if it acted as an electronic communication service or a remote computing service If Arch was deemed to be holding messages as an electronic communication service, plaintiff Quon could pursue legal action for a violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) because Arch disclosed the message content to the employer, who was the service payer but not the intended recipient.
Access to stored emails and electronic communications does not automatically violate the Stored Communications Act (SCA); the scope of authority for that access is also considered Individuals involved in the communication have the right to access their stored messages and can grant permission to others to do so This principle was highlighted in the 2002 Ninth Circuit case, Konop v.
In the case of Konop v Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., the court addressed the concept of authorized access to stored communications, highlighting the limitations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) Similarly, in In re JetBlue Airways Corp Privacy Litig., the court determined that JetBlue's computerized reservation system did not qualify as an electronic communication service (ECS), as the airline was a consumer of such services rather than a provider Consequently, JetBlue was not liable for allegedly disclosing customer records This interpretation was further clarified in Garcia v Haskett, which elaborated on the definition of an electronic communications system, emphasizing that a partnership purchasing electronic communication services is not considered a facility providing those services.
The case Quon v Arch Wireless Operating Co., 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir 2008), addresses the division between public and private causes of action The petition for rehearing en banc was denied in 2009 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in City of Ontario, CA v Quon, 130 S Ct 1011 (2009), and subsequently denied certiorari in USA Mobility Wireless, Inc v Quon, 130 S Ct 1011 (2009).
According to 18 U.S.C § 2702(b)(1) (2006), service providers are allowed to share the contents of stored communications with either the intended recipient or their agent Additionally, 18 U.S.C § 2702(b)(3) provides a comparable exception for remote computing services Furthermore, 18 U.S.C § 2701(c)(2) outlines related provisions regarding the disclosure of such communications.
(2006), a "user" of the service can authorize a third party's access to the communication.
Hawaiian Airlines faced a legal issue when an employee, who had permission to access a protected bulletin board website meant solely for employees, allowed his employer to view the information, despite it violating the explicit terms set by the data poster This situation is similar to the cases of Quon and Konop, which will be examined in further detail.
In Quon, police officers used city-issued pagers for data transmissions, often exceeding the monthly limits Department policies, acknowledged by the officers, stated that the department reserved the right to monitor communications, emphasizing that officers should not expect privacy Despite this, the officer overseeing the overages reassured Quon that he would not audit the transmissions if Quon covered the excess costs personally, which Quon did on multiple occasions.
The Ninth Circuit evaluated the Fourth Amendment protections and determined that Quon could pursue a claim against the city, asserting his expectation of privacy due to assurances from the officer in charge and previous practices, despite the existing Policy Consequently, the court allowed Quon to advance to the next phase of the case, which involves a "reasonableness" assessment regarding the violation of his Constitutionally-protected privacy rights.
The Fourth Amendment's general approach evaluates the reasonableness of a search by considering the totality of the circumstances This assessment involves balancing the extent of privacy intrusion against the necessity of the search for advancing legitimate governmental interests.
173 Id (citing United States v Knights, 534 U.S 112, 118-19 (2001)).
The lawsuit under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) targeted Arch Wireless Operating Co for allegedly infringing on Quon's rights by disclosing the content of his messages to the city upon request These communications were predominantly personal and contained explicit sexual references According to the SCA, to qualify for heightened protection, communications must be stored electronically by an electronic communication service.
Constitutional Protection for Interceptions Otherwise Violating the
The ongoing debates surrounding the "public/private" divide in information are exemplified by significant legal cases, notably Boehner v McDermott, which challenged the Supreme Court's ruling in Bartnicki v Vopper This case highlighted the First Amendment's protection against wiretapping laws that prohibit all disclosures of intercepted communications, especially when they pertain to public discourse The controversy began with a 1996 conference call involving key Republican figures, including then House Speaker Newt Gingrich, discussing a response to an ethics investigation The call was inadvertently intercepted by a Democratic couple using a scanner and tape recorder, an act that, while illegal, gained popularity following high-profile incidents like the 1992 recording of Princess Diana's conversation.
205 See, e.g., The Associated Press, States fight to keep officials' email from public inspection, Mar 19, 2008, available at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id816.
207 Boehner v McDermott, 484 F.3d 573, 575 (D.C Cir 2007), cert denied, 128 S Ct.
A recorded conversation involving a male friend of Gingrich surfaced in the British media, leading to significant repercussions The tape ultimately reached Rep James A McDermott, a prominent Democrat on the House Ethics Committee, who then released it to the press.
The tapers faced charges under the Wiretap Act and pleaded guilty, resulting in a $500 fine However, the case escalated when Rep John Boehner filed a civil lawsuit against McDermott, invoking both the Wiretap Act and its Florida counterpart The politically charged case progressed through the courts, with Democrats arguing First Amendment protections based on the public nature of the information and McDermott's lawful acquisition of it In contrast, Republicans emphasized the initial illegal recording's violation of the Wiretap Act and suggested that McDermott was aware of this illegality when he disclosed the information.
In a split decision, the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the summary judgment for Boehner, concluding that the First Amendment does not shield McDermott from civil liability However, the dissenting opinion, reflecting the views of a majority, argued that the precedent set by Bartnicki dictates that the government cannot suppress information of public interest when it is disclosed without illegal means.
209 Nick Allen & Gordon Rayner, Diana's Squidgygate tapes 'leaked by GCHQ',
THE TELEGRAPH, Jan 11, 2008, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575117/Dianas-Squidgygate-tapes-leaked-by- GCHQ.html.
214 Boehner v McDermott, Civ No 98-594(TFH), 1998 U.S Dist LEXIS 11509, at
The distinction between transmission and storage in privacy protection has historical roots, particularly in the federal interest in safeguarding communications The Wiretap Act, established before the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), set a framework to protect telephone communications from law enforcement interception Initially, all telephone communications were conveyed through human voice and received in real-time The ECPA expanded the Wiretap Act's protections to encompass data communications, yet voice communications enjoy stronger enforcement mechanisms compared to non-voice communications, both of which are afforded greater protection than stored communications This emphasis on oral over written communication is reflected in Western cultural traditions, which have long regarded spoken words as more significant and impactful than written ones.
Fixation and retrieval mechanisms could be a basis for that tradition, as suggested in the Phaedrus 2 4
219 The Wiretap Act was initially enacted June 19, 1968, P.L 90-351, Title III, § 802,
82 Stat 212 Antedating it, § 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat.
The 1934 Act, known as 1103, established regulations against the interception, disclosure, and use of wire communication content Lawmakers emphasized that this legislation did not alter existing legal frameworks.
1971, to Senator John L McClellan from G Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/udiciary/sh92-69-267/249-252.pdf.
220 The Wiretap Act, P.L 90-351, Title III, § 802, 82 Stat 212 (1968).
222 See, e.g., 18 U.S.C § 2515 (2006) (providing suppression remedy only for wire and oral communications, but not data communications).
223 PLATO, PHAEDRUS (Benjamin Jowett trans.) (360 B.C.E.), available at http://classics.mit edu/Plato/phaedrus.html.
But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make theEgyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for
In a dialogue between Thamus and Theuth, Thamus argues that the inventor of an art, like Theuth with writing, may not fully grasp its impact on users He warns that writing will lead learners to forget their memories, relying instead on external texts This invention, while seeming to aid memory, actually fosters forgetfulness, providing only an illusion of knowledge As a result, students may appear wise but lack true understanding, becoming tiresome companions with superficial wisdom.
Phaedr Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales of Egypt, or of any other country.
In the ancient temple of Dodona, it was believed that oaks provided prophetic insights, reflecting a time when people valued truth regardless of its source Unlike modern thinkers who often question the credibility of the speaker and the origin of the message, the ancients accepted wisdom even from inanimate objects like oaks and rocks, prioritizing the truth itself over the speaker's identity.
Phaedr I acknowledge the justice of your rebuke; and I think that the Theban is right in his view about letters.
A person who believes that writing can convey knowledge with certainty, or that it surpasses the understanding and memory of the same ideas, would be quite naive Writing, akin to inscribing thoughts "in water," produces words that lack the ability to communicate independently or impart truth effectively to others.
Phaedr No, that is not likely.
In the garden of letters, he will cultivate his thoughts not for serious pursuits but for enjoyment and nostalgia, creating written memories to cherish in his later years He will take pleasure in witnessing their gentle development, finding joy in this pastime while others seek refreshment in feasting and revelry.
Socrates, the philosopher, highlights the value of engaging in meaningful discussions, suggesting that finding joy in serious topics, such as justice, is a noble pastime This contrasts with trivial pursuits, emphasizing the importance of thoughtful dialogue in enriching one's understanding of profound concepts.
Oral communications are designed for an immediate audience, emphasizing the speaker's knowledge and organizational skills rather than relying solely on written sources The traditional Socratic dialogue in law schools values this live interaction but often follows a linear structure in written materials, which can hinder systematic connections between related subjects In contrast, modern digital technologies, like Google's software, enable the collection and retrieval of vast data archives rapidly, utilizing advanced search techniques and tailored aggregation filters This shift towards nonlinear expression, such as hyperlinking, poses new challenges to the traditional Socratic analysis.
The serious pursuit of the dialectician is far nobler, as it involves finding a kindred spirit and using science to cultivate meaningful dialogue Through this process, words are sown that not only benefit the speaker but also bear fruit in the minds of others, transcending time and place Ultimately, this exchange of ideas fosters profound happiness and fulfillment for those who engage in it.
225 Allan Kotmel, Hypertext vs Papertext: Linear vs Non-Linear, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, 1996, http://www.rpi.edu/deptlllc/webclass/web/filigree/kotmel/linear.html (last visited Mar 26,
In the realm of networked content, users often navigate through various linear paths, engaging with posts and comments in a sequential manner However, the order in which content is created does not always align with the order in which it is consumed This creates a unique dynamic where individuals may add their own contributions after reading through content that was published at different times.
Yesterday, A and B were created independently, without knowledge of one another I then added comment C to A, which enhances the discussion and seamlessly connects to B, advancing the argument further This establishes a linear reading sequence of ACB, highlighting the interconnectedness of the content despite the separate creation timeline.
To a certain extent, there is an element of luck involved in the path a reader takes as they click through a linked network of resources.
Comment of Tony Hirst to OUseful.Info, the blog, http://ouseful.wordpress.com /2009/01/30/non-linear-uncourses-time-for-linked-ed/ (Jan 31, 2009, 12:31 PM).
226 Luiz Andr6 Barroso, Jeffrey Dean, & Urs Holzle, Web Search for a Planet: The
Google Cluster Architecture, IEEE COMPUTER SOC'Y, Mar.-Apr 2003, at 23-24, available at http://labs.google.com/papers/googlecluster-ieee.pdf.