[IP] You've Got Mail (and Court Says Others Can Read It)
Begin forwarded message:
From: "John F. McMullen" <observer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 6, 2004 1:15:47 AM EDT
To: johnmac's living room <johnmacsgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dave Farber <farber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Declan McCullagh
<declan@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: You've Got Mail (and Court Says Others Can Read It)
From the New York Times --
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/technology/06net.html
You've Got Mail (and Court Says Others Can Read It)
By SAUL HANSELL
When everything is working right, an e-mail message appears to zip
instantaneously from the sender to the recipient's inbox. But in
reality, most messages make several momentary stops as they are
processed by various computers en route to their destination.
Those short stops may make no difference to the users, but they make an
enormous difference to the privacy that e-mail is accorded under
federal law.
Last week a federal appeals court in Boston ruled that federal wiretap
laws do not apply to e-mail messages if they are stored, even for a
millisecond, on the computers of the Internet providers that process
them - meaning that it can be legal for the government or others to
read such messages without a court order.
The ruling was a surprise to many people, because in 1986 Congress
specifically amended the wiretap laws to incorporate new technologies
like e-mail. Some argue that the ruling's implications could affect
emerging applications like Internet-based phone calls and Gmail,
Google's new e-mail service, which shows advertising based on the
content of a subscriber's e-mail messages.
"The court has eviscerated the protections that Congress established
back in the 1980's," said Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group.
But other experts argue that the Boston case will have little practical
effect. The outcry, said Stuart Baker, a privacy lawyer with Steptoe &
Johnson in Washington, is "much ado about nothing."
Mr. Baker pointed out that even under the broadest interpretation of
the law, Congress made it easier for prosecutors and lawyers in civil
cases to read other people's e-mail messages than to listen to their
phone calls. The wiretap law - which requires prosecutors to prove
their need for a wiretap and forbids civil litigants from ever using
them - applies to e-mail messages only when they are in transit.
But in a 1986 law, Congress created a second category, called stored
communication, for messages that had been delivered to recipients'
inboxes but not yet read. That law, the Stored Communications Act,
grants significant protection to e-mail messages, but does not go as
far as the wiretap law: it lets prosecutors have access to stored
messages with a search warrant, while imposing stricter requirements on
parties in civil suits.
Interestingly, messages that have been read but remain on the Internet
provider's computer system have very little protection. Prosecutors can
typically gain access to an opened e-mail message with a simple
subpoena rather than a search warrant. Similarly, lawyers in civil
cases, including divorces, can subpoena opened e-mail messages.
The case in Boston involved an online bookseller, now called Alibris.
In 1998, the company offered e-mail accounts to book dealers and,
hoping to gain market advantage, secretly copied messages they received
from Amazon.com. In 1999, Alibris and one employee pleaded guilty to
criminal wiretapping charges.
But a supervisor, Bradford C. Councilman, fought the charges, saying he
did not know about the scheme. He also moved to have the case dismissed
on the ground that the wiretapping law did not apply. He argued that
because the messages had been on the hard drive of Alibris's computer
while they were being processed for delivery, they counted as stored
communication. The wiretap law bans a company from monitoring the
communications of its customers, except in a few cases. But it does not
ban a company from reading customers' stored communications.
"Congress recognized that any time you store communication, there is an
inherent loss of privacy," said Mr. Councilman's lawyer, Andrew Good of
Good & Cormier in Boston.
In 2003, a federal district court in Boston agreed with Mr.
Councilman's interpretation of the wiretap law and dismissed the case.
Last week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-to-1 decision,
affirmed that decision.
Because most major Internet providers have explicit policies against
reading their customers' e-mail messages, the ruling would seem to have
little effect on most people.
But this year Google is testing a service called Gmail, which
electronically scans the content of the e-mail messages its customers
receive and then displays related ads. Privacy groups have argued that
the service is intrusive, and some have claimed it violates wiretap
laws. The Councilman decision, if it stands, could undercut that
argument.
Federal prosecutors, who often argue that wiretap restrictions do not
apply in government investigations, were in the somewhat surprising
position of arguing that those same laws should apply to Mr.
Councilman's conduct. A spokesman for the United States attorney's
office in Boston said the department had not decided whether to appeal.
Mr. Baker said that another federal appeals court ruling, in San
Francisco, is already making it hard for prosecutors to retrieve e-mail
that has been read and remains on an Internet provider's system.
In that case, Theofel v. Farey-Jones, a small Internet provider
responded to a subpoena by giving a lawyer copies of 339 e-mail
messages received by two of its customers.
The customers claimed the subpoena was so broad it violated the wiretap
and stored communication laws. A district court agreed the subpoenas
were too broad, but ruled they were within the law. The plaintiffs
appealed, and the Justice Department filed a friend of the court brief
arguing that the Stored Communications Act should not apply.
In February, the appeals court ruled that e-mail stored on the computer
server of an Internet provider is indeed covered by the Stored
Communications Act, even after it has been read. The court noted that
the act refers both to messages before they are delivered and to backup
copies kept by the Internet provider. "An obvious purpose for storing a
message on an I.S.P.'s server after delivery," the court wrote, " is to
provide a second copy of the message in the event that the user needs
to download it again - if, for example, the message is accidentally
erased from the user's own computer."
Calling e-mail "stored communication" does not necessarily reduce
privacy protections for most e-mail users. While the Councilman ruling
would limit the applicability of wiretap laws to e-mail, it appears to
apply to a very small number of potential cases. The Theofel decision,
by contrast, by defining more e-mail as "stored communications," is
restricting access to e-mail in a wide range of cases in the Ninth
Circuit, and could have a far greater effect on privacy if courts in
the rest of the country follow that ruling.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose
use
has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The
'johnmacsgroup' Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding
of
literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes
a
'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain
permission
from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
"When you come to the fork in the road, take it" - L.P. Berra
"Always make new mistakes" -- Esther Dyson
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic"
-- Arthur C. Clarke
"You Gotta Believe" - Frank "Tug" McGraw (1944 - 2004 RIP)
John F. McMullen
johnmac@xxxxxxx johnmac@xxxxxxxxxxxx johnmac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
johnmac@xxxxxxxxx johnmac@xxxxxxxxxxx
jmcmullen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx johnmac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ICQ: 4368412 Skype, AIM & Yahoo Messenger: johnmac13
http://www.westnet.com/~observer
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/