| |
E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
by k at 4:35 pm EDT, Jun 30, 2004 |
] Authorities charged Councilman with violating the Wiretap
] Act, which governs unauthorized interception of
] communication. But the court found that because the
] e-mails were already in the random access memory, or RAM,
] of the defendant's computer system when he copied them,
] he did not intercept them while they were in transit over
] wires and therefore did not violate the Wiretap Act, even
] though he copied the messages before the intended
] recipients read them. The court ruled that the messages
] were in storage rather than transit. [ Is this total bullshit, or should they have gone after this guy under a different guise? What if the guy had a clickthru when people signed up that any email coming to that address may be read and that they have no expectation of privacy on that system? Seems to me like he should have done the latter, if indeed he didn't, and that this interpretation of the law is exceedingly narrow, and wrong. But, of course, I'm no lawyer. -k] |
| |
RE: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
by ophten at 6:00 pm EDT, Jun 30, 2004 |
k wrote:
] ] Authorities charged Councilman with violating the Wiretap
] ] Act, which governs unauthorized interception of
] ] communication. But the court found that because the
] ] e-mails were already in the random access memory, or RAM,
] ] of the defendant's computer system when he copied them,
] ] he did not intercept them while they were in transit over
] ] wires and therefore did not violate the Wiretap Act, even
] ] though he copied the messages before the intended
] ] recipients read them. The court ruled that the messages
] ] were in storage rather than transit.
]
] [ Is this total bullshit, or should they have gone after this
] guy under a different guise? What if the guy had a clickthru
] when people signed up that any email coming to that address
] may be read and that they have no expectation of privacy on
] that system?
]
] Seems to me like he should have done the latter, if indeed he
] didn't, and that this interpretation of the law is exceedingly
] narrow, and wrong. But, of course, I'm no lawyer. -k] The actual decision is more disturbing than the wired article: There is little protection given to any sort of electronic communications, which leaves open to dispute (although I can hope the courts would rule differently) the issue of VoIP. It could be surmised that ISPs, or transit providers could legally tap or forward communications to a third party be it a government body, or otherwise under the premise that they are stored temporarily in router memory. |
|
| |
RE: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
by Decius at 6:17 pm EDT, Jun 30, 2004 |
k wrote:
] ] Authorities charged Councilman with violating the Wiretap
] ] Act, which governs unauthorized interception of
] ] communication. But the court found that because the
] ] e-mails were already in the random access memory, or RAM,
] ] of the defendant's computer system when he copied them,
] ] he did not intercept them while they were in transit over
] ] wires and therefore did not violate the Wiretap Act, even
] ] though he copied the messages before the intended
] ] recipients read them. The court ruled that the messages
] ] were in storage rather than transit. OK, they picked the wrong law. They should go back with the electronic communications privacy act, which protects stored electronic communications which are less then 180 days old. |
|
E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
by Decius at 1:13 pm EDT, Jul 1, 2004 |
] Authorities charged Councilman with violating the Wiretap
] Act, which governs unauthorized interception of
] communication. But the court found that because the
] e-mails were already in the random access memory, or RAM,
] of the defendant's computer system when he copied them,
] he did not intercept them while they were in transit over
] wires and therefore did not violate the Wiretap Act. [ Is this total bullshit, or should they have gone after this guy under a different guise? -k ] I made a comment about the ECPA yesterday. I'm not sure what the implications of that are here. However, I hadn't paid enough attention to this article at the time. I just read the summary. Turns out, this IS total bullshit. Its one of those cases again where we are making laws that have to do with how technology is designed rather then how people behave. That is always the wrong approach. The line between communications "moving" on a wire and communications "stored" in RAM is so gray in modern telecommunications networks that to draw a line between them is to, as one author effectively put it, eviscerate the wiretap law. Data moves in and out of RAM over and over and over again as it moves between point A and point B. As all networks, including the phone network, are digital, there essentially is no more wiretap law at all in any area where this decision is effective or affirmed. This decision is an absolute nightmare scenario. |
| |
RE: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
by Acidus at 5:19 am EDT, Jul 3, 2004 |
] The line between communications "moving" on a wire and
] communications "stored" in RAM is so gray in modern
] telecommunications networks that to draw a line between them
] is to, as one author effectively put it, eviscerate the
] wiretap law. Everyone should go back an examine our discussion about IM's and recording consent laws. We have touched on these very issues before. http://www.memestreams.net/thread/bid12244/ |
|
E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
by ophten at 2:41 pm EDT, Jun 30, 2004 |
The First Court of Appeals in Massachusetts ruled that Bradford C. Councilman did not violate criminal wiretap laws when he surreptitiously copied and read the mail of his customers in order to monitor their transactions. |
Wired News: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
by Rattle at 7:12 pm EDT, Jul 3, 2004 |
] E-mail privacy suffered a serious setback on Tuesday when
] a court of appeals ruled that an e-mail provider did not
] break the law in reading his customers' communications
] without their consent. I intended to comment on this in some detail, but I'm not even sure where to start. This is one of those things I have trouble believing happened, and sickens me as I'm preparing to enjoy Independence Day festivities. It matters who hosts the services you use. Always has. That being said, it still doesn't make this any less of an attack on personal privacy. |
|
|
