Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hacking By Subpoena

Posted by Hemos on from the not-gonna-do-it dept.

solidox writes "SecurityFocus has an article on how Alwyn Farey-Jones instructed his lawyer to issue a subpoena against ICA to get all their emails. ICA's ISP, NetGate, complied and gave them over 300 emails from ICA employees. When ICA found out about this they sued and the court ruled that this was a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This could be good news for those trying to fight off the RIAA subpoenas to isps to catch file-sharers."

5 of 30 comments (clear)

  1. 300 emails? by aderusha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the entire company only had 300 emails collectively? i've got more than that in my deleted items folder on any 1 given day...

    1. Re:300 emails? by bluGill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If I understood the artical correctly, the 300 or so obtained was a sample. Presumably the ISP was working on getting them the rest when the court steped in. No mention of how many total emails could have been obtained.

      No details are given on how they were selected, so I don't know if they are emails between 1:00pm and 1:10pm, or all emails for an entire month. Or just a random sample from the backup tapes.

  2. Isn't one required to respond to a subpoena? by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I am not a lawyer, so I'm asking. Aren't you immune lawsuits if your actions are required by a court order? It sounds to me like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If a judge orders you to do something, and another judge orders you to pay up for doing just that thing, it seems impossible to comply with the law. Doesn't the constitution have something to say about that? Otherwise, when a judge gives an order, what's to stop a defendent from saying "I'd like to comply with your order judge, but I'm afraid I might get sued!"

    Any lawyers care to comment?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  3. According to the article... by Fryed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, from my reading of the article, it appears that the ISP is not being sued in this case, merely the person who issued the subpoenas. First off, a judge never ordered the ISP to hand over the emails. Apparently, in certain situations, individuals can issue subpoenas without asking the judge, and that appears to be what happened in this case. When the ISP received that subpoena, they were required by law to provide the emails, and did so. When the company whose emails were subpoenaed found out, that's when someone was sued...but it wasn't the ISP who was sued, but the person who issued the subpoenas in the first place.

    (Of course, I'm not a lawyer either, so it's entirely possible that my reading of the article is completely wrong. I'm sure someone will post to enlighten me if that is the case)

  4. Was former Netgate customer by Krellan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's a reason I'm not a Netgate customer anymore.

    They were a fine ISP when I used them several years ago, having good dialin numbers (these were the days before easy broadband access) and reasonable prices. They didn't have any technical problems to speak of. They even had really good USENET access (I used to post a ton from krellan@netgate.net, Google it).

    However, Netgate's social/legal policies really stank.

    At the time, for example, they had agreed to host godhatesfags.com. So, I left.

    It wouldn't surprise me now to see them overzealously comply with a subpoena, hurting their own customers in the process.

    I still think it's really cheap of hosting companies to not warn their customers when receiving legal action against them (except when the DMCA actually requires that they not warn, yet another reason why it's such a scary law).

    --

    Dr. Demento On The 'Net!