Hacking By Subpoena

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Hemos on Monday September 1, 2003 @12:10AM 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."

9 of 30 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

300 emails? by aderusha · 2003-09-01 00:50 · 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 · 2003-09-01 01:14 · 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.
The oldest form of hacking by Dachannien · 2003-09-01 02:03 · Score: 4, Informative

From the article:

"To equate an overbroad subpoena to breaking in is outrageous," says Mark Rasch, an attorney and former Justice Department cybercrime prosecutor. "The real crime here is the ISP getting the subpoena didn't contact the customer immediately and say, 'what do you want to do?' Every subpoena is overbroad. It's the responsibility of the party receiving the subpoena to try and narrow it."

This comment ignores the fact that the oldest form of hacking is social engineering. Doing something to sound official, or to appear to have clout that you don't have, in order to get what you want (generally, to get something you're not supposed to have) is definitely a form of hacking, used in some cases for nefarious purposes. The case mentioned in the article definitely has nefarious outcomes, and so, this sort of social engineering should definitely be prohibited.
1. Re:The oldest form of hacking by MrWa · 2003-09-01 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This comment ignores the fact that the oldest form of hacking is social engineering. Doing something to sound official, or to appear to have clout that you don't have, in order to get what you want (generally, to get something you're not supposed to have) is definitely a form of hacking, used in some cases for nefarious purposes. The case mentioned in the article definitely has nefarious outcomes, and so, this sort of social engineering should definitely be prohibited.
  This comment ignores the fact that the first comment was about breaking in and not about hacking. To equate breaking in with hacking only serves to further the illusion that all hacking is, by its very nature, something that is at best in the grey area of the law. This is, of course, absurd.
  The aforementioned comment goes even further to suggest that social engineering - and overly broad subpoenas by connection - are something that should be regulated because this particular case had "nefarius outcomes." Not a good idea - more regulation is not the answer, thank you very much.
  A better, and more reasoned approach, would be to not give business to an ISP that doesn't care about the privacy of its customers enough to ask what that company would want to do. Maybe, if an ISP were sued for providing the emails in the first place - industrial espionage? - we could focus on the misapplication of a subpoena. This is, though, something that is not new and unique to cyberspace. The application of anti-hacking laws to something that is, in essence, a purely "real-world" problem creates a scary precedent considering the inept laws regarding computers and the Internet that have been created in the past few years.
  BTW: does an ISP actually own the traffic going over its network and, if so, are they not culpable for stolen MP3s? If not, how can the ISP be asked to provide something that does not belong to them (emails in this case...)
somewhat misleading by danoatvulaw · 2003-09-01 02:58 · Score: 5, Informative

When ICA found out about this they sued and the court ruled that this was a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Well, not quite. The 9th Cir. reversed the trial court's dismissal of certain claims made by the plaintiffs. They did not hold that this conduct of serving overbroad, deceptive and illegal subpoenas per se violates the CFAA. Essentially, what the court did say was that there was enough questions of law and fact to go to trial on the issue. The opinion is on the 9th Circuit's website

And to answer the poster below, there are certain times when parties to a litigation can issue subpoenas (under the FRCP), and some statutes authorize subpoena power without requiring the person to whom you are going to serve to be a party (ex. DMCA). But no, not just anyone can issue an subpoena, even though today it may look like it!
Isn't one required to respond to a subpoena? by BitterOak · 2003-09-01 10:43 · 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?
According to the article... by Fryed · 2003-09-01 13:17 · 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)
Over broad ? by jefu · 2003-09-01 15:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Every subpoena is overbroad. It's the responsibility of the party receiving the subpoena to try and narrow it.
IANAL (naturally) so I'm confused.
As I understand it, the DMCA allows someone who thinks they are being ill used (in copyright sorts of ways) to issue a subpoena essentially without a judge being involved and those on the receiving end are then supposed to comply. But this lawyer says that those on the receiving end get to try to negotiate it. If there's no court/judge involved, who do you negotiate with?
Re:Was former Netgate customer by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 16:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

However, Netgate's social/legal policies really stank. At the time, for example, they had agreed to host godhatesfags.com. So, I left.
In other words, you're not a big fan of freedom of speech?