Court rules ISPs are allowed to read E-Mail

[RDX1]

Found this on Slashdot, I don't read there much, but decided to post here because of the whole YouveGotpost.com issue here: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=184460

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.

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.

Councilman, owner of a website selling rare and out-of-print books, offered book-dealer customers e-mail accounts through his site. But unknown to those customers, Councilman installed code that intercepted and copied any e-mail that came to them from his competitor, Amazon.com. Although Councilman did not prevent the mail from reaching recipients, he read thousands of copied messages in order to know what books customers were seeking and gain a commercial advantage over Amazon.

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.

The court acknowledged in its decision (PDF) that the Wiretap Act, written before the advent of the Internet, is perhaps inadequate to address modern communication methods.

But critics said the decision represents a huge privacy setback for e-mail users.

"By interpreting the Wiretap Act's privacy protections very narrowly, this court has effectively given Internet communications providers free rein to invade the privacy of their users for any reason and at any time," said Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "This decision makes clear that the law has failed to adapt to the realities of Internet communications and must be updated to protect online privacy."

In his dissenting opinion, which contained a detailed description of how e-mail works, Justice Kermit V. Lipez wrote that Congress never intended for e-mail temporarily stored in the transmission process to have less privacy than messages in transit. And he acknowledged that "the line that we draw in this case will have far-reaching effects on personal privacy and security."

Source: Wired (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,...tw=wn_tophead_1)

[OPaul]

The law definitely needs updating in this area however I suppose it was the guys right to read the emails as they were technically on his computer.

[vincent]

Thats why i have mines on my own domain and not email thru my isp

[DrThodt]

Isn't there some privacy law that flat out prevents anything like that? If not we need one fast, because that's retarded. We need some sort of law that makes monitoring of any private electronic communication illegal without consent.

[Samoa]

I believe that decision is wrong. Here's why, when you call someone on the phone, are the service providers allowed to record or listen to your conversations without your consent? Is the Post office allowed to open, copy, or ready your mail without your persmission?

the answer of course is no, precedence in those areas should have been taken into account as they are forms of communicaiton.

[RDX1]

Thats why i have mines on my own domain and not email thru my isp

Even so, I do too. Do you rent your server from a shared host? Then they can read it. Do you rent a dedicated server? Then they can read it. Even if you own the actual server they can still monitor traffic incoming and outgoing.

[John S. Veteran]

in 9 years i have never sent an email i would mind being read by authorities if they really felt the need to

[Spacce]

First rule of I've learned about real life.. when I was in high school... Never ever.. write anything down that you can't take back.. that way if its done by word of mouth they techically can't prove it.. :) So I normally don't write anything down that I can't take back (most of the time) .. its gotten me in trouble a few times :p

so *shrug* this doesn't matter

[Rek]

Thats why i have mines on my own domain and not email thru my isp

ditto. :yes:

[Bizkit]

It doesn't bother me alot cause I don't e-mail much. I see how it could bother someone. Its like listening on someone's call.

[Mike Frett]

Lol, i don't e-mail that much either. Maybe 3 or 4 times a year.

[Xer34]

:no: We need a new law to protect privacy and such. Even if you dont email people much, or you dont say anything ridiculously incriminating on the phone, it doesnt mean that they should be able to read our emails without consent. Its not about the act, its about the principle that we have a right to keep things private. Sure, read em, I dont care, but at least ask me first :(

[j005u]

thank god i don't live in america.

geese, this is getting more redic. every week.

[Jerry Grey Member]

Crazy :yes:

[Ruffneckting]

It scares me more he got away with it even though he was using it to get an advantage over Amazon. Surely if he is viewing transactions between them and amazon thats illegal. :huh: