WPC  lD4ʚMr#NS0 K?X #uTzyNKZR{6#0ę֦'AlbRQEܥN6G @/W %D],}!bxہaG:5d"LD4 4!Ea# %m 0Ds 0G U: 08Us8nTUNUNUxF^ ?wK4OcrEtfvax mN^UBbEM^ 0UV 0 0 0z 0] 0= 0 0 0 0C 0 B 0 0! 0{" 0I# 0$ 0$ 0% 0@a& 0& 0u' 0F( 0) 0) 0* 0l+ 0., 00, 0<- 0W- 0>. 0vS. 0`. 0`)/ 0`/ 0`/ 0`I0 080 00 021 01 0:2 0Y3 0_t3 0 3 0j4 0G6 B*7 D/7 D+$8 0O8 D/9 0: 06: 0; 0:< 0^H< 0<< 1e< 0NG=U$6=U>=U* > > 1u3> 72>G> 0c!C 0wC 0C 0D 0%E 0E 0F 0{G 0DjH 1I 727JNiJkJ.J KLN 72+P]P?U?U^_b-a5ab 0ed 0xe 0he 1se 72nfff"JiiljkU8ooooooo 0|ttttuu-uwwwwww}}}]HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !XE\XXX    =E\XXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular˓ 3  ʑ2:i+003|x4TABLE AUL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    16    _Section2520(d)originatedwiththe1968WiretapAct,which  specifiedthat"[a]goodfaithrelianceonacourtorderoronthe  provisionsof[18U.S.C.2518(7)(emergencywiretaps)]shall \ constituteacompletedefensetoanycivilorcriminalaction 2 broughtunderthischapter."Pub.L.No.90851,sec.802,2520, X 82Stat.at223.Aftervariousotheramendmentsnotrelevanthere, . seegenerallyJacobsonv.Rose,592F.2d515,52223&_nn_.1315   (9thCir.1978)(recountingpre_ECPA_Ԁhistoryofprovision),the   _ECPA_Ԁbroadenedthetypesofauthorityonwhichthedefensecouldbe `  based._ECPA_Ԁ103,100Stat.at1854.  T $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    18    _NothinginthisopinionprejudicesCouncilman'sabilityto  arguethegoodfaithdefenseinsubsequentproceedings.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7M(X7  ?[%2A`Arial?  SZ\  `&Times New RomanS7N(X7&  d dL)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7P(X7  ?[%2A`Arial?  SZ\  `&Times New RomanS7N(X7L)2dxd0KS.SampleKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  %&()*+,- 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)]i) = $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    19    _Thedissentsaysthat"White'sarticle,likeother  scholarshipavailableatthetime,thuswouldhaveforcefully  suggestedthatCouncilman'sconductwasnotprohibited."Postat \ 51(Torruella,J.,dissenting).Thatisnotso.Althoughthe 2 articledescribedtheimplicationsoftheFifthCircuitopinionin X  XPXXXPSteveJacksonGames,Inc.v.UnitedStatesSecretServ.,36F.3d . 457,458(5thCir.1994)#XPXX XPp#,itidentifiedthepossibilitythat,even   underthatcase'snarrowviewoftheinterceptprohibition,there   isacategoryofautomaticemailroutingsoftwarethatmight,in `  somesituations,violatetheWiretapAct.(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# `abcdefgxAGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets Listihfn_wireless04GIOU[cksy???????????1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    7    _FormallyknownasTitleIIIoftheOmnibusCrimeControland  SafeStreetsActof1968,Pub.L.No.90351,tit.III,801804,  82Stat.211(codifiedasamendedat18U.S.C.25102522).  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    6    _CountTwo,whichallegedconspiracytoviolatetheComputer  FraudandAbuseAct,18U.S.C.1030(a)(2)(C)and(c)(2)(B),was  voluntarilydismissedbythegovernment.  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    8    _ l WeunderstandCouncilmantorefertocommunicationsin  "wires"inordertoexcludecommunicationswithincomputers,rather  thantoexcludewirelessconnections.mi)  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    17    _Thosecircumstancesare:  8  (_i_)asotherwiseauthorizedinsection2511(2)(a)or2517 \  XPXXXP...#XPXX XPw#Ԁ2   8  (ii)withthelawfulconsentoftheoriginatororany X addresseeorintendedrecipientofsuchcommunication;.   8  (iii)toapersonemployedorauthorized,orwhose   facilitiesareused,toforwardsuchcommunicationtoits   destination;or#`     #8  (iv)[ifthecommunications]wereinadvertentlyobtained  bytheserviceproviderandwhichappeartopertainto  thecommissionofacrime,ifsuchdivulgenceismadeto \ alawenforcementagency.2     18U.S.C.2511(3)(b)(_i_)(iv).  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    10    _BeforeYXPXXXPthe_ECPA_,thedefinitionof"wirecommunication"read:  Ѐ8  "Wirecommunication"meansanycommunicationmadein \ wholeorinpartthroughtheuseoffacilitiesforthe 2 transmissionofcommunicationsbytheaidofwire,cable, X orotherlikeconnectionbetweenthepointoforiginand . thepointofreceptionfurnishedoroperatedbyany   personengagedasacommoncarrierinprovidingor   operatingsuchfacilitiesforthetransmissionof `  interstateorforeigncommunications.6     18U.S.C.2510(12)(1972).Asamendedbythe_ECPA_Ԁin1986,that  2  definitionread:   Ѐ8  "Wirecommunication"meansanyauraltransfermadein d  wholeorinpartthroughtheuseoffacilitiesforthe :  transmissionofcommunicationsbytheaidofwire,cable, `  orotherlikeconnectionbetweenthepointoforiginand 6 thepointofreception(includingtheuseofsuch   connectioninaswitchingstation)furnishedoroperated  byanypersonengagedinprovidingoroperatingsuch h  facilitiesforthetransmissionofinterstateorforeign  communicationsorcommunicationsaffectinginterstateor  foreigncommerceandsuchtermincludesanyelectronic \ storageofsuchcommunication,butsuchtermdoesnot 2 includetheradioportionofacordlesstelephone X communicationthatistransmittedbetweenthecordless . telephonehandsetandthebaseunit.#XPXXYXP#    18U.S.C.2510(12)(1988).  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    1    _Weacknowledgewithgratitudetheassistanceofamicicuriae.  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    4    _TheWiretapActwasamendedinrelevantrespectsin2001,  afterCouncilman'sallegedconductand,forthatmatter,afterthe  indictment.Accordingly,allstatutesarecitedaccordingtothe \ UnitedStatesCodeasof1998exceptwherespecifiedotherwise.- -  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    20    _Asinthemajority'sopinion,statutoryreferenceshereinare  tothepre2001versionoftheWiretapAct.Seemaj.op.at6,  n.4.  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    21    _Theterm"intercept"isdefinedas"theauralorother  acquisitionofthecontentsofanywire,electronic,ororal  communicationthroughtheuseofanyelectronic,mechanical,or \  otherdevice."18U.S.C.2510(4).(U$0   (,/3$0  0` (#(#  (@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# ` 337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)}1)  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    22    _"Electronicstorage"isbroadlydefinedas"(A)any  temporary,intermediatestorageofawireorelectronic  communicationincidentaltotheelectronictransmissionthereof; \ and(B)anystorageofsuchcommunicationbyanelectronic 2 communicationserviceforpurposesofbackupprotectionofsuch X communication."18U.S.C.2510(17)(emphasisadded).  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    2    _Sometimescalledamailuseragent("_MUA_"). _ $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    3    _Insomecases,theemailclientprogramisaccessedthrough  theWorldWideWeb.Thisdoesnotchangethepresentdiscussion.  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    5    _Theindictmentcontainedseveralerrors.Italleged  conspiracytodisclosethecontentsofunlawfullyintercepted  electroniccommunicationsunder18U.S.C.2511(1)(a),which \ shouldhaveread2511(1)(c),andconspiracytousethecontents 2 ofunlawfullyinterceptedelectroniccommunicationsunder X 2511(1)(c),whichshouldhaveread2511(1)(d)or2511(1)(b). . Nosupersedingindictmentcorrectedtheseerrors.Councilmanhas   notraisedthisissue,andweassume,forpurposesofthisappeal   only,thattheindictmentchargedtheconspiracycorrectly.<4 9Z+ Courier New   $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    11    _ XPXXXPIn1994,Congressdeletedtheexclusionofcordlessphone  conversations,#XPXX XP#see XPXXXPCommunicationsAssistanceforLawEnforcement  Act,Pub.L.No.103-414,tit.II,202(a)(1),108Stat.4279, \ 4291(1994),andtwoyearslater,addedan#XPXX XPw#exclusionforelectronic 2 fundstransferinformation,seeAntiterrorismandEffectiveDeath X PenaltyActof1996,Pub.L.No.104-132,tit.VII,731(1)(C), . 110Stat.1214,1303(1996).Thus,bythetimeoftheconduct   allegedintheindictment,Congresshadenactedfiveseparate   exclusionsfromthedefinitionof" XPXXXPelectronic#XPXX XP&#communication,"and `  deletedoneofthem,onthreeseparateoccasions.(T$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#     $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    12    _ XPXXXPForexample,itwasnotmentionedinthe_OTA_ԀReportor_DOJ_'s  commentsintheHouseorSenatehearings.#XPXX XP#  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    9    _Section2510(12)defines"electroniccommunication"as:  8  [_A]ny_Ԁtransferofsigns,signals,writing,images, \ sounds,data,orintelligenceofanynaturetransmitted 2 inwholeorinpartbyawire,radio,electromagnetic, X _photoelectronic_Ԁor_photooptical_Ԁsystemthataffects XPXXXP...#XPXX XP#Ԁ . commerce,but XPXXXP...#XPXX XP#Ԁnot_includ[ing_]--    0  (A)0` (#(#anywireororalcommunication; ` (#` (# 0  (B)0` (#(#anycommunicationmadethroughatone-onlypagingdevice;` ` (#` (# 0  (C)0` (#(#anycommunicationfromatrackingdevice XPXXXP...#XPXX XP#Ԁor6  ` (#` (# 0  (D)0` (#(#electronicfundstransferinformationstoredbya  \  financialinstitutioninacommunicationssystemusedfor  2  theelectronicstorageandtransferoffunds.  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    13    _ XPXXXPThesummaryalsonotedthat"[_c]ertain_Ԁelectronic  communicationsareexemptedfromthecoverageofthebill"and  listedtheexceptionscontainedin18U.S.C.2511(2)(g),noneof \ whicharerelevanthere.Id.Nowherediditsuggestthat 2 electroniccommunicationsthatwerebrieflyintemporarystorage X wereexemptedfromthecoverageofthebill.#XPXX XP#  $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    15    _YXPXXXPAsnoted,TitleIofthe_ECPA_Ԁamendedthe1968WiretapAct.  By"WiretapAct,"wemeanthe1968WiretapActasamendedbyTitle  Iofthe_ECPA_.WerefertoTitleIIofthe_ECPA_Ԁsimplyasthe \ StoredCommunicationsAct.#XPXXYXP# S $XPXXX  =PXXdd=    14    _Pharmatrakarose XPXXXPԀfromatrackingprogramthatsurreptitiously  transmittedinformationaboutusers'webbrowsingactivitytoa  thirdparty.Websitesusingtheserviceaddedtotheirwebpages \ aninstructiontodownloadaninvisibleimagefromthePharmatrak 2 website.Thiscausedtheuser'scomputertocommunicatedirectly X toPharmatrak'swebserver,whichrecordedinformationaboutthe . userandherbrowsingactivity.Seeid.at1314.#XPXX XP# !XPXXX  _  TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * ! XXXXP %X X     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals S %  FortheFirstCircuit  X S XPX X  "A') ` dE< ` A   No.031383 K  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,  G  @%Appellant,   @tt)v. O     `     h @BRADFORDC.COUNCILMAN, K  @<< Defendant,Appellee.  A') ` dE<R` A S @*  APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT ^ :  FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS 4   [Hon.MichaelA._Ponsor_,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<` A b @'Before G   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge,   TorruellaandSelya,CircuitJudges, y! Cyr,SeniorCircuitJudge, O " Lynch,Lipez,andHoward,CircuitJudges. %!u# A') ` dE<#` A #&       JohnA._Drennan_,CriminalAppellateAttorney,U.S.Department $( ofJustice,withwhomMichaelJ.Sullivan,U.S.Attorney,PaulG. b% ) _Levenson_,AssistantU.S.Attorney,andPaulK.Ohm,TrialAttorney, 8&!* U.S.DepartmentofJustice,wereonbrief,forappellant. '^"+   AndrewGood,withwhomMatthew_Zisow_andGood&_Cormier_were ( $- onbrief,forappellee. )$.   PatriciaL._Bellia_andPeterP.SwireonbriefforSenator <+&0 PatrickJ.Leahy,amicuscuriae.   ,b'1   ,8(2?   Marc_Rotenberg_andMarcia_Hofmann_onbrieffor_Whitfield_   _Diffie_,EdwardW._Felten_,JohnR.Levine,PeterG.Neumann,and  Bruce_Schneier_,amicicuriae. \   _Shayana_Ԁ_Kadidal_andCarlosE.Gonzalezonbrief,pro_sese_, X amicicuriae. .   _Orin_ԀS.KerronbriefforCenterforDemocracyandTechnology,   ElectronicFrontierFoundation,ElectronicPrivacyInformation `  Center,AmericanLibraryAssociation,AmericanCivilLiberties 6   Union,andCenterforNationalSecurityStudies,amicicuriae.  \       `     h OpinionEnBanc      `     h     *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  : :  a SI  @38574@SAugust11,2005 t   RHCJ" @38574 @ R(   (  * !  &v _  8PXXdd8*,X` XX*OY ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Thiscasepresentsanimportant  questionofstatutoryconstruction.Wemustdecidewhether x interceptionofanemailmessageintemporary,transient $t electronicstoragestatesanoffenseundertheWiretapAct,as   amendedbytheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyActof1986,18 |  U.S.C.2510-2522.Thegovernmentbelievesitdoes,andindicted ( x  Councilmanunderthattheory.Thedistrictcourtdisagreedand $  dismissedtheindictment.Adividedpanelofthiscourtaffirmed.   Wegrantedreviewenbancandnowreverse.u #  1       ,|   }(33]   I.    (   A.0 ` AnIntroductiontoInternetEmail  3` (#` (#  XPXX XP ` TheInternetisanetworkofinterconnectedcomputers. h DatatransmittedacrosstheInternetarebrokendownintosmall d "packets"thatareforwardedfromonecomputertoanotheruntil  theyreachtheirdestination,wheretheyarereconstituted.See l _Orin_ԀS.Kerr,InternetSurveillanceLawAftertheUSAPatriotAct: h TheBigBrotherthatIsn't,97_Nw_.U.L.Rev.607,61314(2003).   EachserviceontheInternete.g.,email,theWorldWideWeb, p!" orinstantmessaginghasitsownprotocolforusingpacketsof #l$ datatotransmitinformationfromoneplacetoanother.Theemail $ &  protocolisknownasSimpleMailTransferProtocol("SMTP")# XPXXXP#XPXX XP. t&!(  ` Afterausercomposesamessageinanemailclient  program, #  2      ׀aprogramcalledamailtransferagent("MTA")formats \  thatmessageandsendsittoanotherprogramthat"_packetizes_"it X andsendsthepacketsouttotheInternet.Computersonthe   networkthenpassthepacketsfromonetoanother;eachcomputer `  alongtheroutestoresthepacketsinmemory,retrievesthe  \  addressesoftheirfinaldestinations,andthendetermineswhereto   sendthemnext.Atvariouspointsthepacketsarereassembledto d  formtheoriginalemailmessage,copied,andthen_repacketized_Ԁfor `  thenextlegofthejourney.SeeJ._Klensin_,RFC2821:SimpleMail   TransferProtocol(Apr.2001)# XPXXXP~#XPXX XP,at h http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt;# XPXXXP!#JonathanB.Postel,RFC821: d SimpleMailTransferProtocol(Aug.1982),at  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc821.txt("RFC821").XPXX XPSometimesmessages l cannotbetransferredimmediatelyandmustbesavedforlater h delivery.Evenwhendeliveryisimmediate,intermediatecomputers  oftenretainbackupcopies,# XPXXXPL"#XPXX XPwhichtheydeletelater.Thismethod p  oftransmissioniscommonlycalled"storeandforward"delivery. !l"  ` Onceallthepacketsreachtherecipient'smailserver, "$ theyarereassembledtoformtheemailmessage.Amaildelivery t$& agent("MDA")acceptsthemessagefromtheMTA,determineswhich  &p!( usershouldreceivethemessage# XPXXXPz##XPXX XP,andperformstheactualdelivery '#* byplacingthemessageinthatuser'smailbox.# XPXXXPn%#XPXX XPOnepopularMDAis x)$, "_procmail_,"whichiscontrolledbyshortprogramsorscriptscalled  "recipefiles."Theserecipefilescanbeusedinvariousways. \ Forexample,a_procmail_ԀrecipecaninstructtheMDAtodepositmail X addressedtooneaddressintoanotheruser'smailbox(e.g.,tosend   mailaddressedto"help"tothetechsupportdepartment),toreject `  mailfromcertainaddresses,ortomakecopiesofcertainmessages.  \   ` OncetheMDAhasdepositedamessageintotherecipient's   mailbox,therecipientsimplyneedstouseanemailclientprogram d  toretrieveandreadthemessage. #  3      ׀Whilethejourneyfromsender `  torecipientmayseemratherinvolved,itusuallytakesjustafew   seconds,witheachintermediatesteptakingwellunderasecond. h See,e.g.,W._Houser_Ԁetal.,RFC1865:EDIMeetstheInternet d (Jan.1996),athttp://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1865.txt# XPXXXP&#XPXX XPԀ("Foramodest  amountofdatawithadedicatedconnection,amessagetransmission l wouldoccurinamatterofseconds# XPXXXP+#...XPXX XPԀ."). h   &   B.0 ` FactsAllegedintheIndictment  , ` (#` (#  ` DefendantappelleeBradfordC.CouncilmanwasVice   Presidentof_Interloc_,Inc.,which' !,rananonlinerareandoutof 8!" printbooklistingservice.Aspartofitsservice,_Interloc_Ԁgave "4$ bookdealercustomersanemailaddressatthedomain $& "_interloc.com_"# XPXXXPx,#XPXX XPandactedastheemailprovider.# XPXXXP$/#XPXX XPCouncilman <&!( managedtheemailserviceandthedealersubscriptionlist. '8#* # XPXXXP/#XPXX XP ` Accordingtotheindictment,inJanuary1998,Councilman  directed_Interloc_Ԁemployeestointerceptandcopyallincoming \ communicationstosubscriberdealers# XPXXXP;0#XPXX XPfrom_Amazon.com_,anInternet X retailerthatsellsbooksandotherproducts.# XPXXXPn1#XPXX XPԀ_Interloc_'ssystems   administratormodifiedtheserver's_procmail_Ԁrecipesothat,before `  deliveringanymessagefrom_Amazon.com_Ԁtotherecipient'smailbox,  \  _procmail_Ԁ# XPXXXP.2#XPXX XPwould# XPXXXP3#XPXX XPcopythemessageandplacethecopyinaseparate   mailboxthatCouncilmancouldaccess.Thus,_procmail_Ԁwould d  # XPXXXP4#XPXX XPinterceptandcopyallincomingmessagesfrom_Amazon.com_Ԁbefore `  theyweredeliveredtotherecipient'smailbox,andtherefore,   beforetheintendedrecipientcouldreadthemessage.# XPXXXP5#XPXX XPThis h diversioninterceptedthousandsofmessages,andCouncilmanand d other_Interloc_Ԁemployeesroutinelyreadtheemailmessagessentto  _Interloc_Ԁsubscribersinthehopeofgainingacommercialadvantage.# XPXXXPQ6#XPXX XP l   &   C.0 ` ProceduralHistory  8h` (#` (#  ` On# XPXXXP7#YXPXX XPJuly11,2001,a# XPXXYXP8#XPXX XPgrandjuryreturnedatwocount 0 indictmentagainstCouncilman.' 8ԀCountOnechargedhimunder18   U.S.C.371,thegeneralfederalcriminalconspiracystatute,for 8!" conspiracytoviolatetheWiretapAct,18U.S.C.# XPXXXP9#XPXX XPԁ2511,v #  4      ׀# XPXXXPp:#XPXX XPby "4$ interceptingelectroniccommunications,disclosingtheircontents, $& # XPXXXP ;#XPXX XPusingtheircontents,# XPXXXP;#XPXX XPandcausingapersonprovidinganelectronic <&!( communicationsservicetodivulgethecommunications'contentsto  personsotherthanthe_addressees.# XPXXXP<#XPXX XP_ #  5      ׀# XPXXXP=#XPXX XPTheobjectoftheconspiracy \ wastoexploitthecontentofemailfrom_Amazon.com_Ԁtodealersin X ordertodevelopalistofbooks,learnaboutcompetitors,and   attainacommercialadvantagefor_Interloc_Ԁanditsparentcompany.o  #  6      # XPXXXP=#XPXX XP `  # XPXXXP?#XPXX XP ` Thepartiesstipulated# XPXXXP@#XPXX XPtocertainundisputed# XPXXXPt@#XPXX XPfacts:the  \  _procmail_Ԁrecipeworkedonlywithintheconfinesof_Interloc_'s   computer;atalltimesatwhich_procmail_Ԁperformedoperations d  affectingtheemailsystem,themessagesexisted"intherandom `  accessmemory(RAM)orinharddisks,orboth,within_Interloc_'s   computersystem";andeachemailmessage,whiletravelingthrough h wires,wasan"electroniccommunication"under18U.S.C. d 2510(12).# XPXXXP@#XPXX XP  # XPXXXPC#XPXX XP ` Councilmanmovedtodismisstheindictmentforfailureto l stateanoffenseundertheWiretapAct,arguingthatthe h interceptedemailmessageswerein"electronicstorage,"as  definedin18U.S.C.2510(17),andthereforewerenot,asa p  matteroflaw# XPXXXPD#XPXX XP,subjecttotheprohibitionon"_intercept[ing_]# XPXXXPE#...XPXX XP  # XPXXXP7F#XPXX XPelectronic_communication[s_],"18U.S.C.2511(1)(a).# XPXXXPF#XPXX XPThedistrict \ courtinitiallydeniedthemotiontodismiss.Astrialpreparation X began,however,# XPXXXP*G#XPXX XPthedistrictcourt_sua__sponte_reconsideredits   decisioninlightofthethenrecentlydecidedcaseof_Konop_v. `  HawaiianAirlines,Inc.,302F.3d868(9thCir.2002)# XPXXXPG#XPXX XP.After  \  furtherbriefing,thedistrictcourtgrantedCouncilman'smotionto   dismissCountOne,rulingthatthemessageswerenot,atthemoment d  ofinterception,"electroniccommunications"undertheWiretapAct. `  UnitedStatesv.Councilman,245F.Supp.2d319(D.Mass.2003).# XPXXXPI#XPXX XP    ` Adividedpanelofthiscourtaffirmed.UnitedStatesv. h Councilman,# XPXXXP6K#XPXX XP373F.3d197(1stCir.2004).Themajorityconcluded d that,becausethedefinitionof"wirecommunication"includes  "electronicstorage"butthedefinitionof"electronic l communication"doesnot,theWiretapAct'sprohibitionon h "_intercept[ion_]"doesnotapplytomessagesthatare,evenbriefly,  in"electronicstorage."Id.at20004.Thefullcourtgranted p  thegovernment'spetitionforrehearingenbanc.385F.3d793(1st !l" Cir.2004)(percuriam).Becausethisisanappealofanorder "$ dismissinganindictmenton"purelylegal"grounds,ourreviewis t$& denovo# XPXXXPK#XPXX XP,UnitedStatesv.Lopez-Lopez,282F.3d1,9(1stCir.  &p!( 2002),andweassumethetruthofthefactsallegedinthe '#* indictment,seeBankofNovaScotiav.UnitedStates,487U.S.250, x)$, 261(1988). $+t&. # XPXXXPdO#YXPXX XP   &  II. eQ  P# XPXXYXPP#XPXX XP ` TheWiretapActof1968# XPXXXPQ# XPXX XPn #  7      # XPXXXPQ#XPXX XPԀspecified,interalia,the x conditionsunderwhichlawenforcementofficerscouldintercept $t wirecommunications,andthepenaltiesforunauthorizedprivate   interceptionsofwirecommunications.# XPXXXPR# YXPXX XPԀAsamendedbytheElectronic |  CommunicationsPrivacyActof1986,# XPXXYXPS#Pub.L.No.99508,100Stat. ( x  1848("_ECPA_"),YXPXX XPtheAct'Qmakesitanoffenseto"intentionally $  intercept[],endeavor[]tointercept,orprocure[]anyotherperson   tointerceptorendeavortointercept,anywire,oral,or ,|  electroniccommunication."18U.S.C.2511(1).# XPXXYXPT#YXPXX XPTwotermsareat ( issuehere:"electroniccommunication"and"intercept."   ` Councilmancontendsthat# XPXXYXP=V#YXPXX XPtheemailmessagesheobtained 0 werenot,when_procmail_Ԁcopiedthem,"electronic_communication[s_]," , and# XPXXYXPW#YXPXX XPmoreoverthemethodbywhichtheywerecopiedwasnot  "_intercept[ion_]"undertheAct.# XPXXYXP)X#YXPXX XPԀ# XPXXYXPX#Becausethesecontentionsraise 4 importantquestionsofstatutoryconstructionwithbroad 0 ramifications,wediscussinsomedetailtheAct'stext,structure,   andlegislativehistory.WeconcludethatCouncilman's 8!" interpretationoftheWiretapActisinconsistentwithCongress's "4$ intent.WethenturntowhetherCouncilmanhadfairwarningthat $& theActwouldbeconstruedtocoverhisallegedconductina <&!( criminalcase,andwhethertheruleoflenityorotherprinciples '8#* requireustoconstruetheActinhisfavor.Wefindnobasisto  applyanyofthefairwarningdoctrines. YXPXX XP \ # XPXXYXP5\#  A.0 ` "ElectronicCommunication"X` (#` (#  ` om\ YXPXX XPThegovernmentcontendsthat"electroniccommunication"   meanswhatitsays,andnoless:"anytransferofsigns,signals, |  writing,images,sounds,data,orintelligenceofanynature ( x  transmittedinwholeorinpartbyawire,radio,electromagnetic, $  _photoelectronic_Ԁor_photooptical_Ԁsystemthataffectsinterstateor   foreigncommerce,"withfourspecificexceptionsnotrelevanthere. ,|  18U.S.C.2510(12).Councilmanargues,however,that# XPXXYXP]#Congress ( intendedtoexcludeanycommunicationthatisin(evenmomentary)  electronicstorage.Inhisview,"electronic_communication[s_]" 0 undertheWiretapActarelimitedtocommunicationstraveling , throughwiresbetweencomputers.p #  8      ׀Onceamessageentersa  computer,hesays,themessageceases(atleasttemporarily)tobe 4 anelectroniccommunicationprotectedbytheWiretapAct.He 0 claimsthatCongressconsideredcommunicationsincomputerstobe   worthyoflessprotectionthancommunicationsinwiresbecause 8!" usershavealowerexpectationofprivacyforelectronic "4$ communicationsthatareinelectronicstorageevenfleetingly,and $&  thattheActembodiesthisunderstanding. <&!(  ` &    1.0 Text omc (# (#  ` Webegin,aswemust,withthestatute'stext.United \ Statesv.Rosa-Ortiz,348F.3d33,36(1stCir.'c2003).Asnoted X above,thestatutorydefinitionof"electroniccommunication"is   broadand,takenalone,wouldappeartocoverincomingemail `  messageswhilethemessagesarebeingprocessedbytheXPXX XPMTA.# XPXXXPe#  \   ` Councilmanargues,however,thattheXPXX XPplaintextofthe   statuteexemptselectroniccommunicationsthatareinstoragefrom d  thepurviewoftheWiretapAct.Hecontendsthat# XPXXXP{f#XPXX XPthe# XPXXXPlg#definitionof `  "electroniccommunication"mustbereadalongsidethedefinitionof   "wirecommunication"andlimitedbywhatthelatterincludesbut h theformerdoesnot.The_ECPA_Ԁamendedthe1968definitionof"wire d communication"tospecifythat"suchtermincludesanyelectronic  storageofsuchcommunication."18U.S.C.2510(1);_ECPA_ l 101(a)(1)(D),100Stat.at1848.Bycontrast,thedefinitionof h "electroniccommunication"doesnotmentionelectronicstorage.  See18U.S.C.2510(12).XPXX XP_ #  9      _# XPXXXPj#ԀTherefore,Councilmaninfers,Congress p  intendedwirecommunications,butnotelectroniccommunications,to  includeelectronicstorage.Moreover,Congressdefined"electronic \ storage"expansivelytoinclude"anytemporary,intermediate X storageofawireorelectroniccommunicationincidentaltothe   electronictransmissionthereof."18U.S.C.2510(17);see `  Councilman,245F.Supp.2dat320(describingthisdefinitionas  \  "extraordinarilyindeed,almostbreathtakinglybroad").   Sincethepartiesstipulatedthatthemessagesinthiscasewere d  "intherandomaccessmemory(RAM)orintheharddisks,orboth, `  within_Interloc_'scomputersystem"atthetimeoftheinterception,   thosemessagesfallunderthestatutorydefinitionof"storage." h  ` Asoftenhappensunderclosescrutiny,theplaintextis d notsoplain.Thestatutecontainsnoexplicitindicationthat  Congressintendedtoexcludecommunicationsintransientstorage l fromthedefinitionof"electroniccommunication,"and,hence,from h thescopeoftheWiretapAct.Councilman,withoutacknowledging  it,looksbeyondthefaceofthestatuteandmakesaninferential p  leap.HeinfersthatCongressintendedtoexcludecommunications !l" intransientstoragefromthedefinitionof"electronic "$ communication,"regardlessofwhethertheyareintheprocessof t$& beingdelivered,simplybecauseitdidnotincludetheterm  &p!( "electronicstorage"inthatdefinition.Thisinferentialleapis '#*  notaplaintextreadingofthestatute. x)$,  ` Councilman'sbasisformakingthisleapisacanonof   construction:"[_W]here_ԀCongressincludesparticularlanguageinone \ sectionofastatutebutomitsitinanothersectionofthesame X Act,itisgenerallypresumedthatCongressactsintentionallyand   purposelyinthedisparateinclusionorexclusion."_Russello_v. `  UnitedStates,464U.S.16,23(1983)(quotationmarksandcitation  \  omitted;alterationinoriginal);seealso_Trenkler_v.United   States,268F.3d16,23(1stCir.2001)(characterizingthemaxim d  asacanonofconstruction).Relianceonacanonofconstruction `  tosupporttheinferencebeliestheavailabilityofaplaintext   argument.Rather,itconfirmsthatthetextofthestatuteis h ambiguouswithregardtothecommunicationsatissue. d  ` Thequestion,then,iswhetherCouncilman'sinferential  leap,basedonacanonofconstruction,isjustified.The_Russello_ l maximwhichissimplyaparticularapplicationoftheclassic h principle_expressio__unius_est_exclusio__alterius_󀄄assumesthat  Congressactscarefullyanddeliberatelyinincludingtermsinone p  partofastatuteandomittingtheminanother.See_Barnhart_v. !l" PeabodyCoalCo.,537U.S.149,168(2003)("Wedonotreadthe "$ enumerationofonecasetoexcludeanotherunlessitisfairto t$& supposethatCongressconsideredtheunnamedpossibilityandmeant  &p!( tosaynotoit."). '#*  ` Sometimesthatisareasonableassumption;sometimesit x)$, isnot."Thegeneralrulethattheexpressionofonethingisthe $+t&. exclusionofothersissubjecttoexceptions.Likeothercanonsof  statutoryconstructionitisonlyanaidintheascertainmentof \ themeaningofthelaw,andmustyieldwheneveracontrary X intentiononthepartofthelawmakerisapparent."Springerv.   _Gov't_ԀofPhil.Islands,277U.S.189,206(1928);UnitedStatesv. `  _Vonn_,535U.S.55,65(2002)("[_T]he_Ԁcanon...isonlyaguide,  \  whosefallibilitycanbeshownbycontraryindicationsthat   adoptingaparticularruleorstatutewasprobablynotmeantto d  signalanyexclusionofitscommonrelatives."). `   ` ThemaximuponwhichCouncilmanreliesismostaptwhen   Congressenactsanew,selfcontainedstatute,andtwoprovisions h ofthatact,draftedwithparallellanguage,differinthatone d provisionusesaterm,buttheotherprovision,whereitwouldbe  equallysensibletousethattermifCongressdesiredittoapply, l conspicuouslyomitsit.Undersuchconditions,themaxim's h interpretivevalueisatitsapexbecausetheunderlyinginference  oflegislativeintentismostplausible.SeeFieldv.Mans,516 p  U.S.59,75-76(1995)("Themoreapparentlydeliberatethe !l" contrast,thestrongertheinference,asapplied,forexample,to "$ contrastingstatutorysectionsoriginallyenactedsimultaneouslyin t$& relevantrespects.")  &p!(  ` Ifthestatute'slanguage,structure,orcircumstancesof '#* enactmentdifferfromthatidealizedpicture,thecanon'sforceis x)$, diminished.Forexample,ifthelanguageofthetwoprovisionsat $+t&. issueisnotparallel,thenCongressmaynothaveenvisionedthat  thetwoprovisionswouldbecloselycomparedinsearchofterms \ presentinoneandabsentfromtheother."The_Russello_ X presumptionthatthepresenceofaphraseinoneprovisionand   itsabsenceinanotherrevealsCongress'[s]design--growsweaker `  witheachdifferenceintheformulationoftheprovisionsunder  \  inspection."CityofColumbusv.OursGarage&WreckerServ.,   Inc.,536U.S.424,435-36(2002);seealsoClayv.UnitedStates, d  537U.S.522,529(2003)(rejecting_Russello_basedargumentbecause `  twostatutoryprovisionswerenotparallel).Similarly,wherethe   historyofthetwoprovisionsiscomplex,thecanonmaybealess h reliableguidetoCongressionalintent.Forexample,ifthefirst d provisionwasalreadypartofthelaw,whereasthesecondis  entirelynew,Congressmayhavepaidlessattentiontosubtle l differencesbetweenthetwo.Cf.MorenoRiosv.UnitedStates,256 h F.2d68,71(1stCir.1958)(_Magruder_,C.J.)(the_expressio__unius_  inference"isprettyweakwhenappliedtoactsofCongressenacted p  atwidelyseparatedtimes"). !l"  ` InattemptingtodeterminewhetherCongressintendedthe "$ term"electroniccommunication"toexcludecommunicationsin t$& momentarystorage,the_expressio__unius_maximisnotparticularly  &p!( helpful.Putdifferently,thoughitmaybe"presumedthatCongress '#*  actsintentionallyandpurposelyinthedisparateinclusionor x)$, exclusion,"_Russello_,464U.S.at23,thatpresumptionmaybe  rebutted.Thatisthecasehere. \   ` First,thedefinitionsof"wirecommunication"and X "electroniccommunication"intheWiretapActarenotparallel.   Theformerisdefinedinasinglelengthyclausethatspecifies `  multipleindependentcriteria,withtheelectronicstorageclause  \  tackedontotheend.See18U.S.C.2510(1).Therevised   definitionhewscloselytoitsoriginaldefinitioninthe1968 d  WiretapAct;the_ECPA_Ԁsimplyamendedthatdefinitionbyreplacing `  thephrase"communication"with"auraltransfer,"makingcertain   modificationsnotrelevanthere,and,ofcourse,addingtheclause h "andsuchtermincludesanyelectronicstorageofsuch d communication."_s #  10      _ԀSee_ECPA_Ԁ101(a)(1)(D),100Stat.at1848.By  contrast,"electroniccommunication"isfirstdefinedinbroad  termswhicharenarrowedbyfourspecificexclusionsenumeratedin \ separatesubparagraphs.See18U.S.C.2510(12).Thedefinition X wasdraftedfromscratchaspartofthe_ECPA_._ECPA_Ԁ101(a)(6),   100Stat.at184849. `   ` Second,any_expressio__unius_inferencethatcanbedrawn  \  fromthepresenceoftheelectronicstorageclauseinone   definitionanditsabsencefromanotherisintensionwithamuch d  morecompellinganddirectlycontrary_expressio__unius_ `  inferencedrawnfromthesamestatutoryprovisions:Congressknew   howto,andinfactdid,explicitlyexcludefourspecific h categoriesofcommunicationsfromthebroaddefinitionof d "electroniccommunication."See_ECPA_Ԁ101(a)(6)_(C_).  #  11      ׀XPXX XPYet  CongressneveraddedtheexclusionurgedbyCouncilman:# XPXXXPj#"any  electroniccommunicationinelectronicstorage."This \ interpretativeprinciplethenapplies:"WhereCongressexplicitly X enumeratescertainexceptionstoageneralprohibition,additional   exceptionsarenottobeimplied,intheabsenceofevidenceofa `  contrarylegislativeintent."_TRW_v.Andrews,534U.S.19,28  \  (2001)(quotationmarksandcitationomitted).   XPXX XP ` Inshort,the_ECPA_'splaintextdoesnotclearlystate d  whetheracommunicationisstillan"electroniccommunication" `  withinthescopeoftheWiretapActwhenitisinelectronic   storageduringtransmission.Applyingcanonsofconstructiondoes h notresolvethequestion.Giventhiscontinuingambiguity,weturn d tothelegislativehistory. # XPXXXP'#  &   `  2.0 LegislativeHistory thl (# (#  ` Asweexplainbelow,thepurposeofthebroaddefinition h ofelectronicstorage'lpwasYXPXX XPtoenlargeprivacyprotectionsforstored  dataundertheWiretapAct# XPXXYXPn#YXPXX XP,nottoexcludeemailmessagesstored p  duringtransmissionfromthosestrongprotections.Moreover, !l" Congress'ssolepurposeinaddingelectronicstoragetothe "$ definitionof"wirecommunication"wastoprotectvoicemail,and t$& nottoaffectemailatall.  &p!(  `   a.0  Backgroundofthe_ECPA_  '#*(#(# # XPXXYXP# ` Bytheearly1980s,theadventofelectronic x)$, communications,principallyemail,suggestedtomanythatthe $+t&. WiretapActneededrevision.ToupdatetheAct,SenatorPatrick  LeahyintroducedtheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyActof1985. \ SeeS.1667,99thCong.(1985),reprintedin131Cong.Rec.S11,795 X (Sept.19,1985).ThatbillwouldhaveamendedtheActbystriking   outtheexistingdefinitionof"wirecommunication,"substituting `  thephrase"electroniccommunication"for"wirecommunication"  \  throughouttheAct,andsubsumingwirecommunicationswithinthe   newlydefinedterm"electroniccommunication."Seeid.101. d   ` Shortlyafterthebillwasintroduced,theCongressional `  OfficeofTechnologyAssessmentreleasedalongawaitedstudyof   theprivacyimplicationsofelectronicsurveillance.SeeOfficeof h TechnologyAssessment,FederalGovernmentInformationTechnology: d ElectronicSurveillanceandCivilLiberties,availableat  http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1985/8509_n.html(Oct. l 1985)("_OTA_ԀReport").Thereportidentifiedthedifferentpoints h atwhichanemailmessagecouldbeintercepted:  8 ` Thereareatleastfivediscretestagesat p  whichanelectronicmailmessagecouldbe F ! interceptedanditscontentsdivulgedtoan !l" unintendedreceiver:attheterminalorinthe !B# electronicfilesofthesender,whilebeing "$ communicated,intheelectronicmailboxofthe #% receiver,whenprintedinto_hardcopy_,andwhen t$& retainedinthefilesoftheelectronicmail J% ' companyforadministrativepurposes.Existing  &p!( lawofferslittleprotection.&F")` x` x Id.at48.Itemphasizedthat"interceptionofelectronicmailat (#+ anystageinvolvesahighlevelofintrusivenessandasignificant N*%- threattocivilliberties."Id.at50(emphasisadded). +J'/  ` TheDepartmentofJustice("_DOJ_")wastheprincipal  opponentoftheoriginalbill._DOJ_Ԁconcededthat"thelevelof \ intrusionduring[anemailmessage's]transmissionishigherthan X whenitisstored,"buturgedthat"theinterceptionofelectronic   mailshouldincludesomebutnotalloftheproceduralrequirements `  of[theWiretapAct]."ElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct:  \  HearingsonH.R.3378Beforethe_Subcomm_.onCourts,Civil   Liberties,andtheAdmin.ofJustice,HouseComm.ontheJudiciary, d  99thCong.214,230(1986)("HouseHearings")(statementofJames `  Knapp,DeputyAssistantAttorneyGeneral,CriminalDivision,U.S.   _Dep't_ԀofJustice)._DOJ_ԀaskedCongresstotreatprospective h surveillanceofelectroniccommunicationsdifferentlyfrom d surveillanceofwirecommunicationsinthreespecificrespectsthat  arerelatedsolelytolawenforcementandarenotrelevanthere. l Seeid.at215,23233._DOJ_'swillingnesstoextendsomeofthe h WiretapAct'sprotectionstoemaildidnot,however,extendto  "thetimeafteraspecificcommunicationhasbeensentandwhileit p  isintheelectronicmailfirm'scomputersbuthasnotbeen !l" delivered,orhasbeendeliveredtotheelectronicmailboxbuthas "$ notbeenreceivedbytherecipient."Id.at234.Insuchcases, t$& _DOJ_Ԁsuggested,themessageshouldbetreatedlikefirstclassmail,  &p!( andlawenforcementshouldbeabletoseizeitwithanordinary '#*  searchwarrant.Id. x)$,  ` Anewversionofthebillwasintroducedtomeetsome,   butnotall,of_DOJ_'sconcerns.SeeElectronicCommunications \ PrivacyActof1986,S.2575,99thCong.(1986).Thenewbill X rejected_DOJ_'spreferredsolutionandinsteadaddedelectronic   communicationstotheWiretapAct'sexistingprohibitionson `  interceptionofwirecommunications.AstheHousereportmade  \  clear,Congressintendedtogivetheterm"electronic   communication"abroaddefinition: d  8 ` Theterm'electroniccommunication'is `  intendedtocoverabroadrangeof 6 communicationactivities....Asarule,a   communicationisanelectroniccommunication  ifitisneithercarriedbysoundwavesnor h canfairlybecharacterizedasonecontaining > thehumanvoice(carriedinpartbywire). d Communicationsconsistingsolelyofdata,for : example...wouldbeelectronic  communications.Ҷ` x` x H.R.Rep.No.99647(1986),at35.Byincorporatingelectronic B communicationsintotheWiretapAct,thebilllargelyrejected > _DOJ_'sviewthatemailshouldreceiveno(orlittle)more  protectionthanfirstclassmail.SeeH.R.Rep.No.99647,at22 F ! (explainingwhyemaildiffersfromregularmail).Nevertheless, !B# becausesomeof_DOJ_'sspecificconcernswereaddressed,_DOJ_ #%  acknowledgedthat"thebillhasbeensubstantiallymodifiedto J% ' accommodateourconcerns"andsupportedit.Id.at3031.   ` YXPXX XP   &  b.0  Thebroaddefinitionofelectronicstorage thԀ\(#(#   ` Respondingtoconcernsraisedinthe_OTA_ԀReport,Congress X soughtto'\ensurethatthemessagesandbyproductfilesthatare   leftbehindaftertransmission,aswellasmessagesstoredina `  user'smailbox,areprotectedfromunauthorizedaccess.# XPXXYXP#YXPXX XPEmail  \  messagesinthesender'sandrecipient'scomputer# XPXXYXPӾ#YXPXX XPscouldbe   accessedbyelectronically"breakinginto"thosecomputersand d  retrievingthefiles._OTA_ԀReport# XPXXYXPa#YXPXX XPat4849.Beforethe_ECPA_,the `  victimofsuchanattackhadfewlegalremediesforsuchan   invasion.Furthermore,theemailmessagesretainedontheservice h provider'scomputersaftertransmissionwhich,thereportnoted, d areprimarilyretainedfor"billingpurposesandasaconvenience  incasethecustomerlosesthemessage"couldbeaccessedand l possiblydisclosedbytheprovider.Id.at50.Beforethe_ECPA_, h itwasnotclearwhethertheuserhadtherighttochallengesuch  adisclosure.Id.Similarconcernsappliedtotemporaryfinancial p  recordsandpersonaldataretainedaftertransmission.Id. !l"  ` Giventhisbackgroundandtheevidenceinthelegislative "$ historythatCongressrespondedtothe_OTA_ԀReportinrefiningthe t$& legislation,see,e.g.,HouseHearingsat4273,itappearsthat  &p!( Congresshadinmindthesetypesofpreandposttransmission '#* "temporary,intermediatestorageofawireorelectronic x)$, communicationincidentaltotheelectronictransmissionthereof," $+t&. see18U.S.C.2510(17),whenitestablishedthedefinitionof  "electronicstorage."Itsaimwassimplytoprotectsuchdata. \ See# XPXXYXPY#infraYXPXX XPPartII.C.1(describingtheStoredCommunicationsAct).# XPXXYXP#YXPXX XP X Thereisnoindicationthatitmeanttoexcludethetypeofstorage   usedduringtransmissionfromthescopeoftheWiretapAct.# XPXXYXP#YXPXX XPԀ# XPXXYXP#YXPXX XP `    & .   `  c.0  Theelectronicstorageclauseinthe  \  definitionof"wirecommunication" th"Ԁ# XPXXYXP# 2 (#(#  ` Theoriginalversionofthe_ECPA_Ԁof1986'. includedthe   definitionof"electronicstorage"asitreadstoday,butdidnot :  includeelectronicstorageinthedefinitionof"wire 6 communication."132Cong.Rec.S7,991(June19,1986).Neither  SenatorLeahy'sfloorstatementuponintroducingthebillnorthe > staffbillsummarymentionedvoicemailinthecontextofthe : WiretapActamendments.Seeid.;cf.H.R.Rep.No.99647,at63  (mentioningvoicemailinthecontextofStoredCommunications B Act).Voicemailhadnot,apparently,beenamajorsubjectof > discussion inthecontextofthe_ECPA_._ #  12      _Ԁ   ` Similarly,whenRepresentative_Kastenmeier_Ԁintroducedhis F ! identicalbillintheHouse,hedidnotmentionvoicemailinhis !B# remarks.See132Cong.Rec.H4,039(June23,1986).The #% electronicstorageclauseinthewirecommunicationsdefinition J% ' firstappearedinSenatecommitteemarkupaftertheHousehad &F") alreadypassedthebillwithouttheclause.See132Cong.Rec. (#+ S14,441(Oct.1,1986).SenatorLeahy,inhisstatementinsupport  oftheamendedbill,specificallymentionedvoicemail,whichhe \ hadnotdoneinhisremarksearlierthatyear,andthestaff X summaryexplainedthatoneeffectoftheamendedbillwasthat   "[_w]ire_Ԁcommunicationsinstorage,likevoicemail,remainwire `  communications."Id.(emphasisadded)._ #  13      _Ԁ  \   ` Iftheadditionoftheelectronicstorageclausetothe   definitionof"wirecommunication"wasintendedtoremove d  electroniccommunicationsfromthescopeoftheWiretapActforthe `  briefinstantsduringwhichtheyareintemporarystorageenroute   totheirdestinationswhich,asitturnsout,areoftenthe h pointswhereitistechnologicallyeasiesttointerceptthose d communicationsneitheroftheSenatecosponsorssawfitto  mentionthistotheircolleagues,andnoone,evidently,remarked l uponit.Nodocumentorlegislatoreversuggestedthatthe h additionoftheelectronicstorageclausetothedefinitionof  "wirecommunication"wouldtakemessagesinelectronicstorageout p  ofthedefinitionof"electroniccommunication."YXPXX XPIndeed,wedoubt !l" thatCongresscontemplatedtheexistentialodditythatCouncilman's "$ interpretationcreates:messagesconcededbystipulationtobe t$& electroniccommunicationsbrieflyceasetobeelectronic  communicationsforveryshortintervals,andthensuddenlybecome \ electroniccommunicationsagain.Cf.H.R.Rep.No.99647,at35 X ("Theterm'electroniccommunication'isintendedtocoverabroad   rangeofcommunicationactivities# XPXXYXP#...YXPXX XPԀ.Communications `  consistingsolelyofdata# XPXXYXP`#YXPXX XP...# XPXXYXP#YXPXX XPԀwouldbeelectronic  \  communications.").# XPXXYXP*#    YXPXX XP ` Insum,thelegislativehistoryindicatesthatCongress d  includedtheelectronicstorageclauseinthe# XPXXYXP#definitionof"wire `  communication"YXPXX XPԀprovisionforthesolereasonthat,withoutit,   accessto_voicemail_ԀwouldhavebeenregulatedsolelybytheStored h CommunicationsAct.Indeed,thatisexactlywhathappenedwhen d Congresslaterremovedtheexplicitreferenceto"electronic  storage"fromthedefinitionof"wirecommunication"intheUniting l andStrengtheningAmericabyProvidingAppropriateToolsRequired h toInterceptandObstructTerrorism(USAPATRIOT)Act,Pub.L.No.  10756,tit.II,209(1)(A),115Stat.272,283(2001).See p  RobertA._Pikowsky_,AnOverviewoftheLawofElectronic !l" SurveillancePostSeptember11,2001,94Law_Libr_.J.601,608 "$ (2002)("[_T]he_ԀUSAPATRIOTActamendedthestatutoryschemeand t$& unambiguouslybrought_voicemail_ԀundertheStoredCommunications  &p!(  Act."). '#*  ` &   3.0 Conclusion (# (#  ` # XPXXYXP#YXPXX XPWeconcludethattheterm"electroniccommunication" \ includestransientelectronicstoragethatisintrinsic'Ԁtothe X communicationprocessforsuchcommunications.Thatconclusionis   consistentwithourprecedent.See# XPXXYXP%#YXPXX XP_Blumofe_v.Pharmatrak,Inc.# XPXXYXP#(In `  rePharmatrakPrivacy_Litig_.),329F.3d9,21(1stCir.2003)(a  \  rigid"storage-transitdichotomy...maybelessthanaptto   addresscurrentproblems"); #  14      ׀seealsoHallv._EarthLink_ԀNetwork, d  Inc.,396F.3d500,503n.1(2dCir.2005)(rejectingarguments `  that"communicationovertheInternetcanonlybeelectronic   communicationwhileitisintransit,notwhileitisinelectronic h storage").YXPXX XPConsequently,inthiscontextwerejectCouncilman's d proposeddistinctionbetween"intransit"and"instorage."  # XPXXYXP#  &   B.0 ` "Intercept" ic 󀀀l` (#` (#   - ` X,X` X- ` Eventhoughweconcludethatthetemporarilystorede 4 mailmessagesatissuehereconstitute' !Ԁelectroniccommunications 0 withinthescopeoftheWiretapAct,thestatutealsorequiresthe   conductallegedintheindictmenttobean"_intercept[ion_]."18 8!" U.S.C.2511(1)(makingitanoffenseto"intentionally "4$ intercept[],endeavor[]tointercept,orprocure[]anyotherperson $& _tointerceptorendeavortointercept,any...electronic  communication").Theterm"intercept"isdefinedbroadlyas"the \ auralorotheracquisitionofthecontentsofanywire,electronic, X ororalcommunicationthroughtheuseofanyelectronic,   mechanical,orotherdevice."Id.2510(4). `   ` Councilman'scoreargumentonappealisthatbecausethe  \  messagesatissue,whenacquired,wereintransientelectronic   storage,theywerenot"electroniccommunication[s]"and, d  therefore,section2511(1)'sprohibitionon"intercept[ion]"ofany `  "electroniccommunication"didnotapply.Thatistheargument   thatwehavenowrejectedinholdingthatanemailmessagedoes h notceasetobean"electroniccommunication"duringthemomentary d intervals,intrinsictothecommunicationprocess,atwhichthe  messageresidesintransientelectronicstorage.SeesupraPart l II.A. h  ` Councilman'sappealdoesnotprovideanyotherbasisfor  findingthattheacquisitionswerenot"intercept[ions]"of p  "electroniccommunication[s]."Tobesure,Councilmandoesargue !l" that"Congressintended'intercept'tocoveracquisitions "$ 'contemporaneouswithtransmission.'"However,hisentireargument t$& onthispointisbasedonthetheory,ashewritesinhisbrief,  &p!( that"[c]ourtsuniformlyhaveunderstood'electronicstorage'to '#* negatethe'contemporaneouswithtransmission'elementofaWiretap x)$, Act'intercept,'"andtherefore"ane-mailin'electronic_storage' $+t&. OY    ...cannotbydefinitionbeacquired'contemporaneouswith  transmission.'"Thatargumentissimplyavariationon,and \ entirelysubsumedwithin,hisprimaryargumentconcerning"storage" X Єtheveryargumentthatwehavenowrejected.    ` Consequently,thisappealdoesnotimplicatethequestion `  ofwhethertheterm"intercept"appliesonlytoacquisitionsthat  \  occurcontemporaneouslywiththetransmissionofamessagefrom   sendertorecipientor,instead,extendstoaneventthatoccurs d  afteramessagehascrossedthefinishlineoftransmission `  (whateverthatpointmaybe).SeePharmatrak,329F.3dat2122   (notingthattheconceptofacontemporaneityorrealtime h requirement,whichevolvedinotherfactualcontexts,maynotbe d apttoaddressissuesinvolvingtheapplicationoftheWiretapAct  toelectroniccommunications).Wethereforeneednotdecidethat l question.SeeUnitedStatesv.Moran,393F.3d1,12(1stCir. h 2004)(notingthat,incertaincircumstances,anappelleeis  obliged,onpainofwaiver,toraiseadditionaloralternative p  basesforaffirmingafavorablejudgment);_Raxton_ԀCorp.v._Anania_ !l" _Assocs_.,Inc.,668F.2d622,624(1stCir.1982)(emphasizingthe "$ importanceof"[_t]he_Ԁpresentationonappealofallviable t$& justificationsofajudgment").  &p!(  ` Thatendsthisaspectofthematter.Becausethefacts '#* ofthiscaseandtheargumentsbeforeusdonotinvite x)$, considerationofeithertheexistenceortheapplicabilityofa $+t&. contemporaneityorrealtimerequirement,weneednotanddonot  plungeintothatmorass.Wenote,however,thatevenwerewe \ preparedtorecognizeacontemporaneityorrealtimerequirement X astepthatwedonottaketodaywethinkithighlyunlikely   thatCouncilmancouldgenerateawinningargumentinthe `  circumstancesofthiscase.Anysuchargumentwouldentaila  \  showingthateachtransmissionwascompleteatthetimeof   acquisitionand,therefore,thatthedefinitionof"intercept"does d  notcovertheacquisitions.Suchashowingwouldappeartobe `  impossiblesincewehaveconcludedthatthemessageswere   electroniccommunications,anditisundisputedthattheywere h acquiredwhiletheywerestillenroutetotheintendedrecipients.  d C.0 ` IntersectionoftheWiretapActandtheStored  CommunicationsAct` (#` (#   <  ` ThusfarwehaveconsideredonlytheWiretapAct,notthe ^ StoredCommunicationsAct,18U.S.C.27012712,becausethe  Z indictmentonlyallegedaviolationoftheformer.Councilman  arguesthatacquisitionofelectroniccommunicationsintemporary b ! electronicstorageisregulatedbytheStoredCommunicationsAct. "^# Fromthisheinfersthatsuchacquisitionisnotregulatedbythe # % WiretapAct,orthat,atminimum,thepotentialoverlapimplicates f% ' theruleoflenityorotherdoctrinesof"fairwarning." 'b") Consequently,wemustdelveintothe"complex,oftenconvoluted" ($+ intersectionoftheWiretapActandStoredCommunicationsAct. j*%- UnitedStatesv.Smith,155F.3d1051,1055(9thCir.1998). ,f'/  ` &   1.0 TheStoredCommunicationsAct'sCoverage ' (# (#  ` Whiledraftingthe_ECPA_'samendmentstotheWiretapAct, \ Congressalsorecognized'that,withtheriseofremotecomputing X operationsandlarge_databanks_Ԁofstoredelectroniccommunications,   threatstoindividualprivacyextendedwellbeyondtheboundsof `  theWiretapAct'sprohibitionagainstthe"interception"of  \  communications.Thesetypesofstoredcommunicationsincluding   storedemailmessageswerenotprotectedbytheWiretapAct. d  Therefore,Congressconcludedthat"theinformation[inthese `  communications]maybeopentopossiblewrongfuluseandpublic   disclosurebylawenforcementauthoritiesaswellasunauthorized h privateparties."S.Rep.No.99541,at3(1986),reprintedin d 1986_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ3555,3557.   ` CongressaddedTitleIItothe_ECPA_Ԁtohaltthese l potentialintrusionsonindividualprivacy.Thistitle,commonly h referredtoastheStoredCommunicationsAct, #  15      ׀establishednew  punishmentsforaccessing,without(orinexcessof)authorization, p  anelectroniccommunicationsservicefacilityandtherebyobtaining !l" accesstoawireorelectroniccommunicationinelectronicstorage. "$ 18U.S.C.2701(a).Anotherprovisionbarselectronic t$& communicationsserviceprovidersfrom"_divulg[ing_]toanypersonor  &p!( entitythecontentsofacommunicationwhileinelectronicstorage  bythatservice."Id.2702(a)(1). \  ` TheprivacyprotectionsestablishedbytheStored X CommunicationsActwereintendedtoapplytotwocategoriesof   communicationsdefinedbythestatutoryterm"electronicstorage": `  8 ` (A)anytemporary,intermediatestorageofa  \  wireorelectroniccommunicationincidentalto  2  theelectronictransmissionthereof;and ` x` x 8 ` (B)anystorageofsuchcommunicationbyan   electroniccommunicationserviceforpurposes d  ofbackupprotectionofsuchcommunication.r : ` x` x 18U.S.C.2510(17);id.2711(a)(incorporatingWiretapAct 6 definitionsintoStoredCommunicationsAct).Thefirstcategory,  whichisrelevanthere,referstotemporarystorage,suchaswhen > amessagesitsinanemailuser'smailboxaftertransmissionbut : beforetheuserhasretrievedthemessagefromthemailserver.   ` Councilman'sconductmayappeartofallundertheStored B CommunicationsAct'smaincriminalprovision: > 8 ` (a)Offense.Exceptasprovidedinsubsection  _(c_)ofthissectionwhoever--p ` x` x 8 ` 0 ` x` x(1)intentionallyaccesseswithout F ! authorizationafacilitythroughwhich !l" anelectroniccommunicationserviceis !B# provided;or"$ x x  ` 8 (2)intentionallyexceedsan #% authorizationtoaccessthat t$& facility;J% ' 0 0 8 ` andtherebyobtains,alters,orprevents  &p!( authorizedaccesstoawireorelectronic &F") communicationwhileitisinelectronic '#* storageinsuchsystemshallbepunished (#+ ....x)$,` x` x   N*%- 18U.S.C.2701(a).Atthesametime,Councilmanwouldarguably   beexemptedbytheStoredCommunicationsAct'sproviderexception: \ "Subsection(a)ofthissectiondoesnotapplywithrespectto X conductauthorized(1)bythepersonorentityprovidingawireor   electroniccommunicationsservice."Id.2701_(c_).Underthis `  theory,2701(c)(1)establishesvirtuallycompleteimmunityfora  \  serviceproviderthat"obtains,alters,orpreventsauthorized   accessto"emailthatis"inelectronicstorage"initssystem. d  SeeFraser,352F.3dat115("[_W]e_Ԁread2701_(c_)literallyto `  exceptfromTitleII'sprotectionallsearchesbycommunications   serviceproviders.").Thedistrictcourtsurmisedthat2701(a) h wouldhavecoveredCouncilman'sconductbutthat2701(c)(1) d exemptedhim.Councilman,245F.Supp.2dat320.   ` AsecondprovisionoftheStoredCommunicationsAct l prohibits"apersonorentityprovidinganelectroniccommunication h servicetothepublic[from]knowingly_divulg[ing_]toanypersonor  entitythecontentsofacommunicationwhileinelectronicstorage p  bythatservice."18U.S.C.2702(a)(1).Yetthisprovision, !l" too,hasserviceproviderexceptions,permittingaproviderto "$ divulgeanelectroniccommunication"toapersonemployedor t$& authorizedorwhosefacilitiesareusedtoforwardsuch  &p!( communicationtoitsdestination,"id.2702(b)(4),or"asmaybe '#* necessarilyincidenttotherenditionoftheserviceortothe x)$, protectionoftherightsorpropertyoftheproviderofthat $+t&. service,"id.2702(b)(5).Weassume,_dubitante_,thatoneorboth  oftheseprovisionswouldexemptCouncilmanunder2702. \  ` Onthispremise,hearguesthatifheisnotliableunder X theStoredCommunicationsAct,thenhecannotbeliableunderthe   WiretapActeither.SinceCongressenactedthe_ECPA_Ԁasapackage, `  hesays,itdidnotintendtolaytrapsintheoverlapbetweenthe  \  twotitles.Ifconductthatpotentiallyfallsunderbothtitlesis   exemptfromoneofthem,thenthatexemptionprovidesa"safe d  harbor"andtheconductdoesnotviolatetheothertitleeither. `   ` Wefindthisargumentunpersuasive.Ingeneral,iftwo   statutescoverthesameconduct,thegovernmentmaychargea h violationofeither.SeeUnitedStatesv.Herring,993F.2d784, d 788n.4(11thCir.1993)(enbanc)("Theoverlappingcoverageof  theWiretapActandtheCommunicationsAct[of1934]presentsno l problem.Insuchacase,theprosecutionhastherighttoselect h thestatuteunderwhichtheindictmentwillbebrought.").  Moreover,theexceptionsintheStoredCommunicationsActdonot, p  bytheirterms,applytotheWiretapAct.Theexceptionin !l" 2701_(c_)specificallylimitsitsapplicationbystatingthat "$ "[_s]ubsection_Ԁ(a)ofthissectiondoesnotapply...toconduct t$& authorized"bytheserviceprovider.(Emphasisadded).The  &p!( 2701(c)(1)providerexception'sbreadthpresentsastriking '#* contrasttotheWiretapAct'sown,muchnarrowerprovider x)$, exception: $+t&. 8 ` Itshallnotbeunlawfulunderthischapter  for...anofficer,employee,oragentofa  providerofwireorelectroniccommunication \ service,whosefacilitiesareusedinthe 2 transmissionofawireorelectronic X communication,tointercept,disclose,oruse . thatcommunicationinthenormalcourseofhis   employmentwhileengagedinanyactivitywhich   isanecessaryincidenttotherenditionof `  hisserviceortotheprotectionoftherights 6   orpropertyoftheproviderofthatservice  \  .... 2 ` x` x v%Id.2511(2)(a)(_i_)(emphasisadded).Itisindisputablethatthe   WiretapAct'snarrowerserviceproviderexceptionwouldnotprotect :  Councilman.Hisallegedconductwasclearlynot"anecessary 6 incidenttotherenditionofhisserviceortotheprotectionof  therightsorpropertyoftheproviderofthatservice."Ifthere > wereanydoubtremaining,itwouldberesolvedbytheWiretapAct's : expressprovisionthattheonlyexceptionstoitsprohibitionsare  thosespecificallylistedwithintheWiretapAct,notthosefound B inotherlaws.See18U.S.C.2511(1)(prohibitionsapply > "[_e]xcept_Ԁasotherwisespecificallyprovidedinthischapter[the  WiretapAct,18U.S.C.25102522]")(emphasisadded). F ! &   `  2.0 FairWarning ,!B# (# (#  ` Councilmanarguesinthealternativethatthetwotitles #% aresufficiently'!,confusingthatprinciplesoffairwarningrequire J% ' dismissaloftheindictment.ThoseprinciplesareXPXX XPexpressedinthe &F") lawthroughthreerelateddoctrines:theruleoflenity,the (#+ vaguenessdoctrine,andtheprohibitionagainstunforeseeably N*%- expansivejudicialconstructions.SeeUnitedStatesv.Lanier,520 +J'/ U.S.259,266-67(1997);UnitedStatesv.Hussein,351F.3d9,  14-16(1stCir.2003).Weaddresseachinturn. \  `   &  a.0  Lenity 0X(#(#  ` Undertheruleoflenity,grievousambiguityinapenal   statuteisresolved'!0Ԁinthedefendant's# XPXXXP.#XPXX XPԀfavor.SeeLanier,520U.S. `  at266."Thesimpleexistenceofsomestatutoryambiguity,however,  \  isnotsufficienttowarrantapplicationofthatrule,formost   statutesareambiguoustosomedegree."_Muscarello_v.United d  States,524U.S.125,138-39(1998)# XPXXXP'1#XPXX XP.Rather,theruleonlyapplies `  if"thereisagrievousambiguityoruncertaintyinthestatute."   Id.at139(quotationmarksandcitationomitted)(emphasisadded).# XPXXXP2#XPXX XP h # XPXXXP4#XPXX XPFurthermore,lenity"appliesonlyif,afterseizingeverythingfrom d whichaidcanbederived,[acourt]canmakenomorethanaguess  astowhatCongressintended."# XPXXXPg4#XPXX XPԀRenov._Koray_,515U.S.50,65 l (1995)(quotationmarksandcitationomitted);accordUnitedStates h v._Balint_,201F.3d928,935(7thCir.2000)(# XPXXXPu5#XPXX XP"Theruleoflenity  isunavailabletousifthepurportedambiguityinastatutecanbe p  resolvedthroughnormalmethodsofstatutoryconstruction.").# XPXXXP6#XPXX XP !l"  ` Here,whilethestatutecontainssometextualambiguity, "$ itisnot"grievous."# XPXXXP7#XPXX XPWehaveconstrueditusingtraditionaltools t$& ofconstruction,particularlylegislativehistory,andlenityis  &p!( therefore# XPXXXP8#XPXX XPinapplicable.See,e.g.,_Dixson_v.UnitedStates,465 '#* U.S.482,491(1984)("Ifthelegislativehistoryfailstoclarify x)$, thestatutorylanguage,ourruleoflenitywouldcompelusto $+t&. construethestatuteinfavorofpetitioners,ascriminal  defendantsinthesecases.")(emphasisadded). \  ` Furthermore,Congressspecificallyanticipatedthat X communicationserviceprovidersmight,ingoodfaith,misapprehend   theirlawfulabilitytointerceptordisclosecommunicationsin `  certaincircumstances.Congressaddressedthatproblemwitha  \  broad,affirmativegoodfaithdefense:   8 ` Agoodfaithrelianceon...8@ X(3)agood d  faithdeterminationthat[2511(3)]permitted :  theconductcomplainedof[]isacomplete `  defenseagainstanycivilorcriminalaction 6 broughtunder[theWiretapAct]oranyother   law.` x` x <18U.S.C.2520(d)(3). #  16      ׀Section2511(3),inturn,authorizesa > communicationserviceprovidertodivulgeacommunicationtoone : otherthantherecipientinfourspecifiedcircumstances.r  #  17      ׀Thus,  Congresscontemplatedthatserviceprovidersmight,ingoodfaith,  misunderstandthelimitsoftheirauthorityonaparticularsetof \ facts,andprovidedastatutorymechanismtosolvethisproblem. X Wemayneitherexpandthegoodfaithdefense's# XPXXXP9#XPXX XPscope,norconvert   itfromafactbasedaffirmativedefensetoabasisfordismissing `  anindictmentonlegalgrounds. #  18        \  &   `   b.0  Vagueness cB (#(#  ` Thevaguenessdoctrinebarsenforcementofastatute d  whosetermsare'B"sovaguethatmenofcommonintelligencemust `  necessarilyguessatitsmeaninganddifferastoitsapplication."   Lanier,520U.S.at266(quotationmarksandcitationomitted).# XPXXXPA#XPXX XPԀ h Butvaguenessismorethanjust"garden-variety,textual d ambiguity."_Sabetti_v._Dipaolo_,16F.3d16,18(1stCir.1994)  (_Breyer_,C.J.)."Manystatuteswillhavesomeinherentvagueness, l for'[_i]n_ԀmostEnglishwordsandphrasestherelurk h uncertainties.'"Rosev.Locke,423U.S.48,49-50(1975)(per  curiam)(citationomitted)# XPXXXPD#XPXX XP.But# XPXXXP_G#XPXX XPa# XPXXXPG#XPXX XPstatuteisunconstitutionally p   vagueonlyifit"prohibits# XPXXXPG#...XPXX XPԀanactintermssouncertainthat !l" personsofaverageintelligencewouldhavenochoicebuttoguess  atitsmeaningandmodesofapplication."Hussein,351F.3dat14. \   ` # XPXXXPH#XPXX XPTheWiretapActisnotunconstitutionallyvagueinits X applicationhere.Fromitstext,apersonofaverageintelligence   would,attheveryleast,beonnoticethat"[_e]xcept_Ԁasotherwise `  specificallyprovidedin"theAct,# XPXXXPI#XPXX XP"electronic_communication[s_],"  \  whicharedefinedexpansively,maynotbe"intercepted."18U.S.C.   2511(1)(a).Anexceptionisprovidedforelectronic d  communicationserviceproviders,butitonlyappliesto"activity `  # XPXXXPMK#whichisanecessaryincidenttotherenditionof[the]serviceor   totheprotectionoftherightsorpropertyoftheproviderofthat h service."18U.S.C.2511(2)(a)(_i_).TheActputstheservice d provideronnoticeofboththeprohibitedconductandthenarrow  providerexception.XPXX XPThatisadequatenotice.# XPXXXPoN#XPXX XPԀ# XPXXXPN#XPXX XP l &   `   c.0  Unforeseeablyexpansiveinterpretation ceO @ h(#(#  ` Finally,thethirdbranchoffairwarningdoctrine"bars  courtsfromapplyinganovel'AOԀconstructionofacriminalstatuteto p  conductthatneitherthestatutenoranypriorjudicialdecision !l" hasfairlydisclosedtobewithinitsscope."Lanier,520U.S.at "$ 266 .Thisdoctrineprincipally"bars'unforeseeableand t$& retroactivejudicialexpansionofnarrowandprecisestatutory  &p!( language.'"Hussein,351F.3dat14(citationomitted);accord '#* _Balint_,201F.3dat935(doctrineonlyappliesifjudicial x)$, interpretations"amounttoanunpredictableshiftinthelaw"). $+t&.  ` Thatdoctrinedoesnotapplyhere.Thesimplestreading  ofthestatuteisthattheemailmessageswere"electronic \ communications"underthestatuteatthepointwheretheywere X intercepted.Onemustapplytoolsofstatutoryconstructionto   removetheconductfromthestatute'sambitbyinterpretinga `  subtletyinthedefinitionof"wirecommunications."Whateverelse  \  onemightsayabouttheWiretapAct,"_intercept[ing_]# XPXXXP O#...XPXX XP   # XPXXXPU#XPXX XPelectronic_communication[s_],"18U.S.C.2511(1)(a),is"conduct d  that# XPXXXPU#...XPXX XPԀthestatute# XPXXXPV#...XPXX XPԀhasfairlydisclosedtobewithinits `  scope,"Lanier,520U.S.at266 .# XPXXXPW#    ` Indeed,a1997lawreviewarticleobservedthat,undera h narrowinterpretationofthe_ECPA_'s"intercept"prohibition, d "unlesssometypeofautomaticroutingsoftwareisused(for  example,aduplicateofallanemployee'smessagesare l automaticallysenttotheemployee'sboss),interceptionofE-mail h withintheprohibitionofthe_ECPA_Ԁisvirtuallyimpossible."  _Jarrod_ԀJ.White,E-Mail@_Work.com_:EmployerMonitoringofEmployee p  E-Mail,48Ala.L.Rev.1079,1083(1997)(emphasisadded);see !l" alsoXPXX XPPharmatrak,329F.3dat22(quotingthislanguage "$ approvingly# XPXXXP[#XPXX XP).# XPXXXP[#ԀThus,almostayearbeforeCouncilman'salleged t$& conduct,theacademicliteraturehadnotedthat,evenundera  &p!( readingofthe_ECPA_Ԁnarrowerthanours,"automaticrouting '#*  software"thatautomaticallyforwardedduplicatecopiesofauser's x)$, messageswouldqualifyas"interceptionofE-mailwithinthe   prohibitionofthe_ECPA_."Id.Thatobservationanticipatedthis \ case._ #  19       X   III.    ^ ` Althoughthetextofthestatutedoesnotspecifywhether |  theterm"electroniccommunication"includescommunicationsin ( x  electronicstorage,thelegislativehistoryofthe_ECPA_Ԁindicates $  thatCongressintendedthetermtobedefinedbroadly.   Furthermore,thathistoryconfirmsthatCongressdidnotintend,by ,|  includingelectronicstoragewithinthedefinitionofwire ( communications,totherebyexcludeelectronicstoragefromthe  definitionofelectroniccommunications. 0  ` Wethereforeconcludethattheterm"electronic , communication"includestransientelectronicstoragethatis  intrinsictothecommunicationprocess,andhencethatinterception 4 ofanemailmessageinsuchstorageisanoffenseunderthe 0  WiretapAct.Moreover,thevariousdoctrinesoffairwarningdo   notbarprosecutionforthatoffense.Consequently,thedistrict  courterredindismissingtheindictment. \   ` Judgmentvacated.Remandedforfurtherproceedings X consistentwiththisopinion.    @  DissentingOpinionFollows    XPXX XPw-,X` X` X- ` TORRUELLA,CircuitJudge,withwhomCYR,SeniorCircuit  Judge,joins(Dissenting) .AlthoughIcommendJudgeLipezonhis x eruditeandarticulatemajorityopinion,Iamimpededfromjoining @ thesamefortworeasons.First,theindictmentislegally  < insufficienttoestablishacriminalviolationof18U.S.C.371   forconspiracytoviolatetheWiretapAct,18U.S.C.2511, D   insofarastheemailsCouncilmanisallegedtohaveretrievedwere @  in"electronicstorage,"18U.S.C.2510(17),whenthataction   tookplace,andtherefore,theWiretapAct'srequisiteelementof H  "interception,"18U.S.C.2511,islacking.SeeUnitedStatesv. D Councilman,373F.3d197,20004(1stCir.2004).Second,andin  thealternative,theresultreachedbytheenbancmajority L deprivesCouncilmanofdueprocessoflaw,becausehehadno"fair H warning"ofthepotentialcriminalconsequencesofhisactions.  SeeUnitedStatesv.Lanier,520U.S.259,265(1997). P  ` Butforthejuxtapositionofourrespectiveviews,there L isnotmuchnewinthepositionsofthemajorityanddissentfrom   thosepresentedbythepanelopinionexceptthat,byreasonofthe T!" majority'sconclusionthattheindictmentchargesavalidcriminal #P$ violation,wearerequiredtodiscussCouncilman'sdueprocess $& claim,whichthepaneldidnothavetoreach.SeeCouncilman,373 X&!( F.3dat204n.7.  (T#* @tt) I.    ` Thefactsofthiscaseasstipulatedbythepartiesstate x that"[_a]t_Ԁalltimesthat_sendmail_Ԁand_procmail_Ԁperformed $t operationsaffectingtheemailmessagesatissue,themessages   existedintherandomaccessmemory(RAM)orinharddisks,or |  both,within_Interloc_'scomputersystem."(Emphasisadded). ( x   ` Strippedofalltechnicaljargon,thesolelegalissue $  presentedbythisappealiswhethertheinformationcontainedin   thiscomputersystemisdatathatcanbe"intercepted"withinthe ,|  meaningoftheWiretapAct.Theanswertothatquestionisnotto ( befoundinthewringingoftheproverbialhandsordirewarnings  oftheDoomsdaythatispredictedtofollowoneortheother 0 conclusion.Cf.YvetteJoy_Liebesman_,ThePotentialEffectsof , UnitedStatesv.CouncilmanontheConfidentialityofAttorney  ClientEMailCommunications,18Geog.J.LegalEthics893(2005). 4 Rather,theanswerliesinadispassionatereadingofthe 0 legislationx #  20      ׀uponwhichthecriminalchargesarebased.    ` ThestatutethatCouncilmanischargedwithconspiringto 8!" violateprovidesforcriminalsanctionsagainst"anypersonwho "4$ (a)intentionallyintercepts,y #  21      ׀endeavorstointercept,orprocures $& anyotherpersontointerceptorendeavortointercept,anywire,  oral,orelectroniccommunication."18U.S.C.2511(1)(emphasis \ added).Theterm"electroniccommunication"isdefinedas"any X transferofsigns,signals,writing,images,sounds,data,or   intelligenceofanynaturetransmittedinwholeorinpartbywire, `  radio,electromagnetic,_photoelectronic_Ԁor_photooptical_Ԁsystem."  \  18U.S.C.2510(12).Incontrast,theterm"wirecommunication"   isdefinedas"anyauraltransfermadeinwholeorinpartthrough d  theuseoffacilitiesforthetransmissionofcommunicationsbythe `  aidofwire,cable,orotherlikeconnectionbetweenthepointof   originandthepointofreception...furnishedoroperatedby h anypersonengagedinprovidingoroperatingsuchfacilities... d andsuchtermincludesanyelectronicstoragef #  22      ׀ofsuch  communication."18U.S.C.2510(1)(emphasisadded). l  ` ItisCongress'failuretoprovidethisemphasized h languageinitsdefinitionof"electroniccommunication"that  incitesthemajorityintoengaginginwhatIbelievetobean p  unfortunateactofjudiciallegislationthatnoamountof !l" _syllogization_Ԁcancamouflage.Thelacunabetweenthedefinitionof "$ "wirecommunication"andthatof"electroniccommunication"can  onlybebridgedbythebodythatcreatedit;jurisprudential"body \ English"doesnotsufficetofillthatvacuum.Althoughnature X abhorsavacuum,ithasnopoweroverlegislativeoversights.    ` Infindingthecorrectlegalanswertothenonexistent `  dilemmawhichthemajoritybelievesexists,weneedgonofurther  \  thanourownInreHart,inwhich,aproposofthepresent   circumstances,westatedthat,"[_w]hen_ԀCongressincludesparticular d  languageinonesectionofastatutebutomitsitinanother `  sectionofthesameAct,itisgenerallypresumedthatCongress   actsintentionallyandpurposelyinthedisparateinclusionor h exclusion."328F.3d45,49(1stCir.2003)(quoting_Barnhart_v. d _Sigmon_ԀCoalCo.,534U.S.438,452(2002)).Contrarytothe  majority'sassertionsthatthis_expressio_Ԁ_unius_presumptionought l notapplybecausethelanguageinquestionwasnotpartofa"new, h selfcontainedstatute,"maj.op.at13,itisactually"made  strongerwhen,ashere,Congresshasamendedastatutetoinclude p  certainlanguageinsome,butnotall,provisionsoftheStatute." !l" UnitedStatesv.Steiger,318F.3d1039,1051(11thCir.2003) "$ (construingtheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct),cert. t$& denied,538U.S.1051(2003);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Fisher,6  &p!( U.S.(2Cranch)358,399(1805)("Wherealawisplainand '#*  unambiguous,whetheritbeexpressedingeneralorlimitedterms, x)$, thelegislatureshouldbeintendedtomeanwhattheyhaveplainly  expressed,andconsequentlynoroomisleftforconstruction."). \   ` Theseprinciplesareparticularlyrelevanttothe X interpretationoffederalcriminalstatutes,for"[_f]ederal_Ԁcrimes   aredefinedbyCongress,notthecourts,"andthus"policiesof `  strictconstruction"shouldguideouractions.Lanier,520U.S.at  \  267n.6.    ` Itisnotbycoincidencethateverycourtthathaspassed d  upontheissuebeforeushasreachedaconclusionoppositetothat `  oftheenbancmajority:thattheWiretapAct'sprohibitionon   interceptingelectroniccommunicationsdoesnotapplywhentheyare h containedinelectronicstorage,whethersuchstorageoccurspre d orpostdelivery,andevenifthestoragelastsonlyafew_mili_Ԅ  seconds.See_Theofel_v._Farey_ԄJones,359F.3d1066,107778(9th l Cir.2004)(postdelivery);Fraserv.NationwideMut.Ins.Co.,352 h F.3d107,11314(3dCir.2003)(postdelivery);UnitedStatesv.  Steiger,318F.3d1039,104849(11thCir.2003)(onharddrive), p  cert.denied,538U.S.1051(2003);_Konop_v.HawaiianAirlines,302 !l" F.3d868,87879(9thCir.2002)(onwebsiteserver),cert.denied, "$ 537U.S.1193(2003);SteveJacksonGames,Inc.v.UnitedStates t$& SecretServ.,36F.3d457,46162(5thCir.1994)(preretrieval);  &p!( seealsoUnitedStatesv.Reyes,922F.Supp.818,836(_S.D.N.Y._ '#*  1996)(findingnointerceptionwheremessageswereretrievedfrom x)$, pagers'memoriespriortotheirretrievalbyintendedrecipients  becausethemessageswerein"electronicstorage"). \   ` Contrarytotheenbancmajority'sview,our X interpretationofthestatutedoesnotrequirethatweassumethat   Congresscontemplatedthecompleteeviscerationoftheprivacy `  protectionsforemail.Whenconsideringtheintracomputer  \  "interceptions"atissuehere,Congressrationallymaywellhave   concludedthatthepublic'sprivacyrights,ormorespecifically d  thosebetweenanemailserviceprovideranditsowncustomers, `  couldbeadequatelycontrolledbynormalcontractprinciplesrather   thanbyfederalstatute.Councilman's"interception"of_Interloc_ h customers'emailwasnotakintoaninterceptionengagedinbyan d outsidepartywhowasunrelatedorunknowntothecontracting  parties.Whenacustomersignsupwithanemailproviderlike l _Interloc_,heroutinelyisaskedtoreadandexpresslysignoffon h aprivacyagreementwhichdefineshisexpectationsofprivacyvis  vistheprovider.Iftheprotectionsareinadequate,hemay p  declinetheemailserviceandseekanalternativeservicecontract !l" whichwillaffordhimtheprotectionsherequires.Neitherthe "$ WiretapActnoritslegislativehistoryforeclosestheinference t$& thatCongress,initsexclusionof"electronicstorage"fromthe  &p!( definitionof"electroniccommunication,"intendedtoleavesuch '#*  matterstotheexigenciesofthecontractingparties.If_Interloc_ x)$, didinterceptitscustomers'messagesinbreachofaprivacy  agreement,theremedyliesincontract,notintheWiretapAct. \   ` Iseenopointinrummagingthroughthelegislative X historyofastatutewhoselanguage,ormoreaccurately,absence   thereof,speaksforitself."[_W]hen_Ԁthestatute'slanguageis `  plain,thesolefunctionofthecourtsatleastwherethe  \  dispositionrequiredbythetextisnotabsurdistoenforceit   accordingtoitsterms."Doddv.UnitedStates,125S.Ct.2478, d  2483(2005)(quotingHartfordUnderwritersIns.Co.v.Union `  PlantersBank,N.A.,530U.S.1,6(2000)).Thiscasepresentsthe   classicexampleof"legislativehistory[which]isitselfoften h murky,ambiguous,andcontradictory."ExxonMobilCorp.v. d _Attapattah_Ԁ_Servs_.,Inc.,125S.Ct.2611,2626(2005)(_rev'g_  RosarioOrtegav.Star_Kist_ԀFoods,Inc.,370F.3d124(1stCir. l 2004)). h 8 ` Judicialinvestigationoflegislativehistory  hasatendencytobecome,toborrowJudge  Leventhal'smemorablephrase,anexercisein p  'lookingoveracrowdandpickingoutyour F ! friends.'...[_J]udicial_Ԁrelianceon !l" legislativematerialslikecommitteereports, !B# whicharenotthemselvessubjecttothe "$ requirementsofArticleI,maygive #% unrepresentativecommitteemembersorworse t$& yet,unelectedstaffersandlobbyistsboth J% ' thepowerandincentivetoattemptstrategic  &p!( manipulationsoflegislativehistorytosecure &F") resultstheywereunabletoachievethrough '#* thestatutorytext.(#+` x` x Id.Inanyevent,Irefertothepanelopiniononthispoint. N*%- Councilman,373F.3dat20304. +J'/  ` Ibelievethatbothviewpointsonthefirstissuebefore  theenbanccourthavebeenadequatelyexpressed.Ultimately,it \ isuptotheSupremeCourttodeterminewhichiscorrect,but,in X myviewthegovernmenthasattemptedtofishwithanetthathas   holesinitandisthusinneedofrepair. `  @88) II.   \   ` Unfortunately,thematterdoesnotendhere.As $  demonstratedbytheresultsofpreviouseffortsbythisandother   courtstograpplewiththestatuteinquestion,anylingering ,|  ambiguitythatmakesroomforthemajority'sinterpretation ( certainlyqualifiesas"grievous,"maj.op.at35.Dueprocess,  therefore,requiresthatthestatutebeconstruedagainstcriminal 0 liability,inaccordancewiththeruleoflenity.SeeLanier,520 , U.S.at266;_Huddleston_v.UnitedStates,415U.S.814,831(1974).  Eveniftheambiguityisnotsoserious,and"clarityatthe 4 requisitelevelmaybesuppliedby[themajority's]judicialgloss 0 onanotherwiseuncertainstatute,dueprocessbarscourtsfrom   applyinganovelconstructionofacriminalstatutetoconductthat 8!" neitherthestatutenoranypriorjudicialdecisionhasfairly "4$ disclosedtobewithinitsscope."Lanier,520U.S.at266. $& Whicheverdoctrineof"fairwarning"onemightapply,thebottom <&!( lineisthatthestatuteandthecasesconstruingitdidnotmake '8#* it"reasonablyclearattherelevanttimethatthedefendant's )$, conductwascriminal."Id.at267. @+&.  ` AtthetimethatCouncilmanallegedlyviolatedthe  WiretapActin1998,hewouldhavehadavailablethefollowingto \ guidehisconduct:(1)thestatuteinquestion,and(2)the X JacksonGamescase(1994)and,tangentially,theReyescase(1996).   ThereislittleinanyofthesethatwouldhavegivenCouncilman `  fairnoticeoftheenbancmajority'sinterpretation,whichitself  \  requiresrelianceonlegislative"history"thatresemblesa   Byzantinemaze. d   ` Nordidthe1997lawreviewarticlecitedbythemajority `  rendertheinterpretationadoptedtodayforeseeable.Quitethe   opposite,infact.ThatarticleexaminedthedecisioninSteve h JacksonGames,36F.3d457,inwhichtheFifthCircuitdetermined d thatthepreretrievalseizureofprivateemailsstoredona  bulletinboardserverdidnotconstitutean"intercept"under18 l U.S.C.2511(1)(a).Whitewrote: h 8 ` Rejectingtheappellant'sargumentthat  logicallyseizureofsomethingbeforeitis  receivedshouldconstituteinterception,the p  SteveJacksonGamescourtheldthattheE-mail F ! storedonthe[bulletinboard's]computerhard !l" drivewasnolongerintransmission,andthus !B# couldnotbeinterceptedwithinthemeaningof "$ 18U.S.C.S2511(1)(a)....Thenarrowness #% oftheFifthCircuit'sinterpretationof t$& "interception"isimportant.Followingthe J% ' FifthCircuit'srationale,thereisonlya  &p!( narrowwindowduringwhichanE-mail &F") interceptionmayoccur--thesecondsor '#* _mili_-secondsbeforewhichanewlycomposed (#+ messageissavedtoanytemporarylocation x)$, followingasendcommand.Therefore,unless N*%- sometypeofautomaticroutingsoftwareis $+t&. used(forexample,aduplicateofallan +J'/ employee'smessagesareautomaticallysentto  theemployee'sboss),interceptionofE-mail  withintheprohibitionofthe_ECPA_Ԁis \ virtuallyimpossible.2` x` x White,supra,at108283(footnoteomitted)(emphasisadded).   Clearly,thesoftwareusedbyCouncilmanwasnot"automaticrouting `  software"thatoperates"beforeanewlycomposedmessageissaved  \  toanytemporarylocation."Id.at1083.White'sarticle,like   otherscholarshipavailableatthetime,thuswouldhaveforcefully d  suggestedthatCouncilman'sconductwasnotprohibited.SeeThomas `  R.Greenberg,EMailandVoiceMail:EmployeePrivacyandthe   FederalWiretapStatute,44Am.U.L.Rev.219,249(1994)("Thus, h thelimitationsimposedonemployerinterceptionsofwireand d electroniccommunicationsvanishoncethesamecommunicationisin  storage.Accordingly,inordertoavoidTitleIIIliability,an l employerneedonlyaccessemployeecommunicationsoncetheyhave h beenstored.");_Ruel_ԀTorres_Hernndez_,_ECPA_ԀandOnlineComputer  Privacy,41Fed.Comm._L.J._Ԁ17,39(19881989)("Inotherwords, p  theresimplyisno_ECPA_Ԁviolationifthepersonorentityproviding !l" awireorelectroniccommunicationserviceintentionallyexamines "$ everything[instorage]onthesystem,whetherornotitisforthe t$& purposeofaqualitycontrolcheck.")(internalquotationmarks  &p!( omitted).Thus,IamatalosstoconceivehowCouncilmanwould '#* havehadfairnoticeofthemajority'sinterpretationatthetime x)$, ofhisactions. $+t&.  ` Finally,Congress'sprovisionofagoodfaithexception  forthosewhodivulgeinterceptedcommunicationsbecausethey \ misconstruedtheWiretapAct'snarrowexceptionstocriminal X liabilityasanaffirmativedefense,seemaj.op.at3637(citing   18U.S.C.2520(d)(3)),isirrelevant.Councilmanshouldnothave `  toshowhereliedonthoseexceptionstodivulgetheemailshe  \  obtained,becausehehadno"reasonablyclear"indicationthatto   dosowouldotherwiseviolatetheWiretapAct. d   ` Councilmanisbeingheldtoalevelofknowledgewhich `  wouldnotbeexpectedofanyofthejudgeswhohavedealtwiththis   problem,tosaynothingof"men[andwomen]ofcommon h intelligence."Lanier,520U.S.at266(quotingConnallyv.Gen. d Constr.Co.,269U.S.385,391(1926)).Iftheissuepresentedbe  "gardenvariety,"maj.op.at37(quoting_Sabetti_v._Diapaolo_,16 l F.3d16,18(1stCir.1994)),thisisagardeninneedofaweed h killer.   ` Forthereasonsstated,Irespectfullydissent.# XPXXXPd#