Slashdot Mirror
Save a Chatlog... Go to Prison?
Alien54 writes "You are engaged in a chat session with some friends and colleagues, when one of them makes a witty remark or imparts a pithy bit of information. You hit CTRL-A and select the conversation, then copy it to a document that you save. Under a little-noticed decision in a New Hampshire Superior Court in late February, these actions may just land you in jail. New Hampshire is "two-party consent state" -- one of those jurisdictions that requires all parties to a conversation to consent before the conversation can be intercepted or recorded. The decision is the first of its kind to apply that standard to online chats, and the ruling is clearly supported by the text of the law. But it marks a blow to an investigative technique that has been routinely used by law enforcement, employers, ISPs and others, who often use video tape or othermeans to track criminals in chat rooms. This also has troublesome implications [for employers] monitoring of email and other forms of electronic communications."
Under the Sarbanes-Oxley act employers are required to monitor and archive all electronic communications. There was an article about this the other day over at El Reg.
So, in New Hampshire, it sounds like employers must either not comply with Sarbanes-Oxley or must be guilty of illegal wiretapping. Or am I missing something?
Is email considered a telecommunications medium? If I'm a two-party consent state, and someone sends me an email without included or implied permission to save it, am I required to delete it from my server and my hard drive after I've read it?
Hey, couldn't this be used to fight off an RIAA lawsuit? Could making a record of a Kazaa user's IP address without that user's consent be illegal in a two-party consent state?
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
This is downright welcome! Some portion of you are going to consider this flamebait, but shouldn't online chat be held to the same restrictions that other conversations are?
If we had the easy ability to do audio searches, would there be phones that recorded a history of the last n hours of conversation you had? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should...
Once again we demonstrate that, in our current society, law is meaningless as long as you sign an agreement. With this type of mindset we never should have fought a Civil War. Just have the slaves sign an employee agreement in which they consent to accepting nothing more than a shack, a plot of land, and arbitrary termination at any time.
When is America going to wake up out of this hypocrisy?
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
The test seems to be whether the recording capability is part of the instant messaging software itself (in which case it may be legal to record) or whether it is an add-on, and therefore an unlawful recording.
So the Slashdot article is somewhat skewed. The chatlog isn't illegal. And I wouldn't be too upset, since the process the officer used involved video screen capture, as well as cutting and pasting, to get into a final document.
As far as chatlogs go, it's generally understood that written correspondence (mail, etc.) is owned by the one who receives it. I'd be surprised to see chatrooms fall outside that rule of thumb.
"well you can probably blame the employee"
IANAL, and I don't have any knowledge about how this works in other countries, but in the US, I don't think that will fly in a court of law. The employee is an agent of the company. If the employee fails to get the permission, an agent of the company failed to get permission. Therefore, it's the company's fault (respondeat superior). I.e. companies are responsible for hiring employees, so they are responsible for the employees' actions.
I know that after knee surgery my father was not able to return to work when he felt ready because they were concerned that he might reinjure his knee on work time (the original injury was not work related). Even if *he* had been at fault, they would have been liable if he was on work time.
CYA of this sort only works inside a corporation. It has no weight in a court case, AFAIK.
A better solution is to simply automatically inform anyone who connects that the conversation is being recorded (in the log file) and direct them to other methods of conversation if this is unacceptable. A buddy list request response might be able to handle this (if you only accept messages from someone on your buddy list; those not on it have to send you a request to be on it).
DO you give implicit permission to record buddy requests that you make? If not, then how could they add you to the buddy list (doesn't that record it)?
You would have the freedom of saying something to a friend on IRC without worrying that someone is going to use it against you.
If you don't trust your friend, why are you telling him your secrets in the first place? Even if it's somehow possible to prevent him from saving the transcript, there's no way you can stop him from "using it against you".
In a country where the laws keep on getting more crappy for joe american, we need protection.
On the other hand, I see great potential for abuse. I'm sure certain individuals in government would love to prevent all permanent records of their statements.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.