Slashdot Mirror
Court To Reconsider Decision On ISP Mail Snooping
thpr writes "In June, Slashdot reported that ISPs can read email (according to a decision by the 1st circuit court of appeals). In short, the court felt it was not a violation of U.S. wiretap laws. Last month, the Justice Department asked for the full court to reconsider the decision. C-Net now reports that the court will 'reconsider its June 29 decision'. Arguments are scheduled for Dec 8."
I would tend to agree with this ruling. I believe that an individual should protect her property as it's kind of like leaving a sofa on the curb not expecting it to be removed or like not having curtains on your windows and expecting people to not look in as the drive by. The property owner of the email should be protecting it via encryption or its there for anyone to read.
I like double rot-13; if it is encrypted and someone cracks it than I guess you should find a better encryption algorithm.
All they need is to declare that the FBI is an ISP... Voilà, problem solved!
John Ashcroft is fighting for greater privacy for email?
Wonder how the groupthink will justify this.
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
It seem like a reversal of policty for the DoJ, but perhaps it is because they want to be the _only_ group to be able to snoop mail.
Well, sure they can. Oh! You meant legally.
There's an issue here?
I read my users' email all the time, to, uh, ummmmm, help tune my, um, spam filters.
Yeah, that's it, to tune my spam filters.
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
ISPs can read mail. It is rather impossible to stop them from being able to read plain text data. It is a matter of if they choose to not do so.
If I placed a confidential document on the street with no protection can I arrest you for reading it?
Allowing Email to be read would help prevent spam and other illegal activities.
If you want to protect your Email you can encrypt it using one of the many available free applications/protocals. Which I recommend you do anyways!
of privacy as phones.
why sould it be that once I use a computer and/or the internet I must see my rights go down the tubes?
Hopefully, this is part of the reason why the Court is reconsidering its decision
If I had a real
I'm going to email myself the Goatse image 1000times/day from now on so whenever they read my email they get my opinions stated to them bluntly.
...using the wire-tapping law seems like trying to fit an oblong peg into a round hole. Close, but no dice.
The solution here is either to encrypt your email or to create a new law specifically forbidding ISPs from reading your email.
I prefer the former method to the latter. Laws forbidding an ISP from reading your email don't protect your email. They can act as a deterrent, but first you have to find out it occured, and then you have to prosecute. And then your email has already been read.
Or gmail? Or yahoo mail? You CAN'T send/read encrypted mail. Sure, there's husmail, but they only give 32 megs. Versus 1 gig on gmail.
You can read the order for an en banc rehearing here.
One of the questions they ask the parties to argue for the rehearing is "Whether the conduct at issue in this case could have been additionally, or alternatively, prosecuted under the Stored Communications Act?".
Hmmm, I wonder what the Stored Communications Act is? It seems the court might be worried that the SCA (whatever it is) already applies to email-snooping, so that the Wiretap Act should not apply.
Well, for one thing, nobody is saying ISP's can't technically (and easily) read plain text emails stored on their systems.
The purpose of such a law would be to allow penalties/punishment in situations where it can be proven that an employee of an ISP read someone else's mai and used the information in some sort of harmful manner.
We've already got plenty of laws in place that work the same way. For example, there are laws against eavesdropping on cellular phone conversations, yet hundreds of thousands of police scanners are out there which let the user listen to these calls anyway. I don't think the intention of the law was to hunt down people listening to cellphones on their scanners, and arrest them. Rather, it gives the legal system a tool to use against someone who broke another law and used his/her eavesdropping abilities as part of the crime.
(I could see this coming into play in a blackmail case, among other possibilities.)
The argument that letting ISPs read mail helps fight spam is probably valid - except we don't allow mailmen to open up letters to help fight junk mail. (I don't know about you, but I've gotten quite a bit of sneaky postal junk mail guised as important letters....)
Ultimnately, I think this is honestly going to be one of those legal issues where the individual's ability to retain privacy while exchanging email won't really change either way. If ISP's are legally allowed to read your mail, then sure - you need to encrypt it somehow if you're afraid they might see something you don't want them to see. If they're not allowed to read your mail, then the same rule applies. (Most of us would rather prevent a problem from coming up in the first place than having to fight in court to correct it after the fact.)
No law will stop someone from reading it. It is still transmitted in a format anyone can read. Laws miss the point when it comes to this aspect of privacy. Not that I care if someone reads my email - I know it is not secure when I send it!
i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
The SCA is here.
See the mail is stored on the ISP's server. It's their equipment, they pay for it. So they can do what ever they want with it.
To be perfectly honest this is a waste of time. Who has time to go plundering through mailboxes? And even if someone does, well if you wanted to make sure it was read by a particular person it shoul have been encrypted.
I would guess it is rather Ashcroft and his buddies don't want to let someone else have more information than they have.
Disappointing to see Slashdot is mostly just mainstream big media news now.
Everything is in the topic :)
The telephone network and internet have very different makeups, and what makes sense for one does not necisarrily make sense for another.
With the telephone system, you only have a handfull of companies which have control of and legal access to the communication lines. They are tightly regulated by the government, and thus laws are fairly effective at protecting your privacy. With the telephone system, up until the 1950's, there was no method of encrypting conversations, and it was much later until these technologies were developed enough to be available to the public. Laws and physical security were the only means available to protect your privacy, and thus they were employed to do so.
The internet is designed to be distributed in nature, and thus far more people have legal access and control over the lines and servers through which you information passes. With the internet it has been anticipated from the beginning that encryption would be used for any sensitive communication. Furthermore, what entails a wiretap? Parsing mail to improve a spam filter? Caching user data to improve performance? The internet was designed to not be secure without encryption, and unenforcable laws are worthless. Why do you want the government to give you a false sense of privacy and security when you could have real privacy and security right now on your own?
Imagine if we go the route that many groups want which is to have local and state governments provide their own taxpayer-subsidized WiFi internet access, as is being talked about for Houston. It would be a disaster for civil liberties. It would be so much easier for the government to spy on you under the guise of the law and you'd have no recourse but to pray that private ISPs are still in business in your area, which they very well might not be with a cheap state-sponsored competitor.
There are of course limits that have to be placed on how private your messages are on an ISP's network. I personally have no problem with somebody that the ISP has detected has been systematically, egregiously violating state and federal laws with the ISP's resources getting spied on a bit to cover the ISP's ass. The ISP has a right, if it **happens** to find you systematically violating the law and putting it in any way at risk to see what you are up to. The only alternatives are a world where criminals have complete freedom of movement and the other is where the police actively spy on the public. I happen to like neither, but that's just me.
You also have to wonder why someone who is sending stuff that is so sensitive that they wouldn't want anyone but the recipient seeing it, wouldn't encrypt the message first. If nothing more write a little script that that scrambles the message based on some hack algorithm you come up with and send it via another email account to the recipient. It's not REALLY secure, but it's a little better than nothing.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
All -
With the tinfoil hat paranoia running at all time highs, it is interesting to note it was the DOJ, not the EFF or ACLU, that asked the full Appeals Court to reconsider this decision.
I guess that the nasty, civil rights stomping Ashcroft DOJ feels that wiretap laws apply in this situation. Curious.
Yours,
jordan
This opens allot of questions in mind how. Is this different from wire taping? We say that is legal as long as the partly gets a court order. Read this http://www.technewsworld.com/story/34965.html The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts held that it was not a violation of federal, criminal wiretap laws for the provider of an e-mail service to monitor the content of users' incoming messages without their consent. I do not see a problem as long as they have a valid reason to do such a an act for the good of the people There needs to be laws on the net just as there are in real life
I think we're going through a time when others are using loopholes in the law to get their way...
For example, the Patriot Act. The govt gets to do all kinds of crazy shit knowing that they'll have a year or two to do whatever they want until it's passed through courts and is ruled unconstitutional.
Knowing that it will eventually float back through the courts and be ruled out, this little time frame gives them enough time to do anything they please without repurcussions.
Instead of having this take time, it should be put the the very front of the queue, especially when it comes to privacy and your basic rights. That way, there's no way this shit could ever get pulled off.
What's scarier is how this even got passed to begin with. What dickhead Judge would rule in favor of an ISP snooping through people's email? One that shouldn't be in office, that's who.. and one that is a threat to everything this country stands for.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
The ISP will now not be able to use your e-mail as evidence against you having gathered it illeagly. Fruit of the poison tree defence.
I'm a sys admin for an ISP for the last eight years. Do I read customers' email? Yes. Every single email that comes into our servers is "read". Not personally - but by scripts and filters.
The real effect (if this is passed) would be that some spammer gets a bounce message from a spam filter, sues a major ISP for "reading his email" and wins, and then ISPs drop spam filtering to keep from getting sued for privacy violations.
Makes a case for universal PGP...
thought they were already reading it............
Would the affect Google's ability to scan GMail messages in order to place context ads?
I thought that this issue was directly related to activities such as machine scanning of emails for viruses and malware. Gmail added the twist of machine scanning for the display of relevant ads.
I suppose that the tricky part is making the above activities legal, while humans reading another's email becomes illegal.
It would be so much easier for the government to spy on you under the guise of the law
Yes, of course. You expect that from the government, and luckily we have checks and balances in the government. We have watchdog groups. We have the FOIA. We have none of these covering private businesses; the only way we'd know an ISP was reading mail is if they did something stupid, or a whistleblower speaks out. We have no checks and balances with private businesses.
I personally have no problem with somebody that the ISP has detected has been systematically, egregiously violating state and federal laws with the ISP's resources getting spied on a bit to cover the ISP's ass.
So you'd accept the ISP coming over to your house in the middle of the night with a team of thugs to beat you into confessing? You say it wouldn't happen because you don't do anything illegal... what if your system was zombied, or if your email address was used in to send spam. Instead of following the law and conducting a full investigation, they just kidnap you and hold you in the basement w/o food or water.
You also have to wonder why someone who is sending stuff that is so sensitive that they wouldn't want anyone but the recipient seeing it, wouldn't encrypt the message first.
It doesn't matter if what we send isn't that sensitive enough to encrypt. It doesn't matter if we're just chatting about the weather. What matters is that these conversations should be private, and there's a reasonable expectation that they will be private. We know that from end to end there are points where messages can be spied on, but we have the right to expect that no spying will be done without due process.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
I look a my typical phone bill, and I see all sorts of taxes, levies, and surcharges. I'd say that the telephone infrastructure is indeed subsidized a good deal by us tax-paying folks already. That doesn't even include the subsidies that aren't so overt, like those many businesses get, the quasi-monopoly status of the regional telcos, etc.
At least, we can rightfully sue the govnerment for the breach of due process. Private companies are pretty much excluded from those protections, and they roll over like submissive dogs when the Feds come knocking. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them those subsidies.
Method of processing duck feet
Do you use pgp? me neither..
.. because others are idiots.
/var/spool/mail/* " then google for it .....
...
....
....
....
Not because i am an idiot like others
No, seriously, using pgp would put a point on all that crap, it is just the ignorance of the masses that prevent me and others to start using it....
Of course do not pgp everything, but stuff you care about should be protected.
And tell you what, I was admin at ISPs with thousand accounts, and while I never read mail I know it was common to search info in mails (not private stuff, but some people figured, it was sometimes more interesting to "grep keyword
How can you really prevent your isp to see your mail file ? With laws ? HAHAHA
PGP IT if it is important, educate your friends. If in US, use weak encription (if you care), elsewhere 2048 bits or more
anyway... usually like talking to a wall
On the other hand: when you see people (company ceo) discussing confidential company info, and passwords/accounts over msn and aim, what do you expect from the everyday johndoe who discusses his sexual discoveries or last night's pot-smoking adventures to his buddy via email? Nothing: other than clear text
...I would not be using email in the first place.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Right now all email is essentially postcards. There is no envelope (i.e. encryption) on most email.
Would anyone here be upset if the mailman read a postcard that they sent from Paris to their friend back home?
grep outlawed, labeled a "munition". New program, "grap", to replace. Will only search files if the "public" bit is set on a file.
You really haven't been paying attention to politics lately. Ever heard of the USA PATRIOT Act or the foreign surveillance courts and laws? Puhlease, private business are now more accountable to you than your own government. The checks and balances are almost dead entirely.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Sometimes, I need to read your e-mail.
Its not that I care what your e-mail says. I just need to inspect the data flowing across my network in several ways.
Does the anti-virus software I implemented count as reading your e-mail? How about the anti-spam filters? Most filters are automated, but questionable messages are quarrantined for (potential) human review. What about when I am monitoring packet traffic (load balancing/troubleshooting hardware/tracking viruses/etc) and your plain-text e-mail scrolls by on my screen?
At what point am I reading your e-mail?
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
He's not as "evil" as slashdot groupthink would seem to indicate.
Yes, I disagree with him on a number of points *cough*thePATRIOTActisBAD*cough* but that doesn't make him some kind of archfiend, no matter how his actions are portrayed by some.
...the CDT, EPIC, and the ALA. Here's their brief (in PDF).
Ryan Kennedy opposes comm
Yes, of course. You expect that from the government, and luckily we have checks and balances in the government. We have watchdog groups. We have the FOIA. We have none of these covering private businesses; the only way we'd know an ISP was reading mail is if they did something stupid, or a whistleblower speaks out. We have no checks and balances with private businesses.
Wait. NONE of that is true. We have all of those things covering private businesses; we also have one other critical thing: with a private business, we have the ability to refuse to do business with them. With the government, we have no such right.
If the gov't sets up an ISP offerring free wireless broadband, you MUST participate -- the gov't doesn't ASK you whether you want to pay taxes to support it. If they later decide to use their rights as an ISP to monitor everything, again we have no right to prevent that -- it's their property, even though they took it from you by force.
Actually, I would say that if the gov't were to set up any such system, the only way to legitimately apply property rights would be to either allow EVERY taxpayer the right to view all the data, or allow nobody (including the FBI and the system administrators) the right to view the data. The second choice is impossible using current technology, and the first choice is kind of ugly but honest (it would work and be useful -- it would make the system a kind of bulletin board).
So you'd accept the ISP coming over to your house in the middle of the night with a team of thugs to beat you into confessing?
Um... No? That's a stupid, stupid question. He's saying that an ISP has property rights in their servers; so long as they don't violate their contracts, there's no injustice done. There's nothing at all in the property rights argument to indicate anything about giving ISPs or anyone else licence to violate your property and personal rights.
What matters is that these conversations should be private, and there's a reasonable expectation that they will be private.
Now this is fair, and I agree with you in essence. Not everything must be explicitly mentioned in every contract; some things are reasonably assumed. I personally wouldn't expect my emails to go 100% unread unless the contract specified that (and I personally would be suspicious of such a claim, since it's unenforcable), but I would expect (for example) that people in the ISP wouldn't use information from them to (for example) compete against me. If they did, I'd throw an unfair competition or misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit against them, claiming that I used their company to deliver a message not knowing that some of the employees were competing.
There are other examples to support parts of your case, and most of those examples can be worked very well with current laws. In no case, however, does it make sense to claim some kind of absolute right to privacy aside from consideration of property rights.
-Billy
The way I see it, e-mail is like a phone call. Most of my day-to-day conversations aren't particularly confidential and I don't really care about the lack of security. That said, I also wouldn't want someone outside tapping my phone line, and thankfully there are laws against that. On the same note, I would prefer if there were similar laws to prevent random people from reading my e-mail. Encryption isn't really an option because most of the people I communicate with have probably never even heard of encryption and certainly wouldn't know how to decrypt a message. This includes semi-formal e-mails I send to my school. The lack of security simply does not imply that I consent to a third party reading my e-mail (just as I wouldn't consent to a third party tapping my phone even though I don't use encryption there either).
but u could choose to read the mail if u wanted-yes? and probably to do just kill time and have a few laughs and also if the last name looks middle eastern or islamic-----------yes??
there's probably a bunch of "super-patriots" doing their own snooping!.... or wanking which ever is the case.
Brief [IANAL]: If you do not have authority to read stored communication, it's a crime to do so unless you are authorized by the ISP or the intended recipient. While section (c)(1) says the code does not apply to those authorized by the ISP, who is authorized is not addressed, thus could be an agent of the ISP. - the proverbial fox is guarding the henhouse. The code is pretty straightforward. ISPs are not restricted by this law. Or does this hinge on what the meaning of the word is, is? =P
(a) Offense.-- Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever--
(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or
(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility;
and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
However:
(c) Exceptions.-- Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with respect to conduct authorized--
(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service; [in other words the ISP.]
(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or intended for that user; or
(3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title.
So if this fellow did not have permission from the ISP or the recipients, he's pretty much SOL.
,
Otto
I think they got the decision all wrong. They should force the ISPs to read all the email. This will have a number of effects:
1. It will reduce the amount of spam emails, as ISPs become more proactive in filtering at the incoming end.
2. It will spur the tech-economy, as ISPs are then forced to hire more tech-readers to process the email.
3. It will cut the amount of outsourcing, as spammers add more verbosity to the emails to get them past the filters, and ESL-applicants just won't cut it.
My proposal involves having the e-mail readers at the ISP set up like "A Clockwork Orange", complete with the toothpicks to make sure they don't miss a thing!
I believe you are confusing theft with invasion of privacy. The email was not "stolen", it was read and maybe copied.
A (potentially) more applicable scenario would be if someone left a letter laying around and someone came by and read it, or maybe took pictures of it that would allow it to be read later.
I believe better questions to ask yourself are:
Was the letter on private property of the reciepient of the letter?
Should the ISP be held to the same level of privacy as the companies that carry our voice and postal services? (Even though voice communications are not encrypted and could be listened in on anyone that lines that carried a particular conversation, a judge must issue permission for a wiretap before it could be used as evidence (Well.. pre PATRIOT act that is)) It's a slightly different case with our postal mail because that is in a sealed container that must be violated before the letter could be read.
I believe the wiretap law is exactly what we're talking about here. The main difference is the internet is much more diverse than our telephone service providers and a much larger number of companies and individuals have the potential to read email passing over their connection, but why shouldn't they be expected to heed the same privacy rights of the end users that telephone companies do?
While the analogy was not perfect, information "theft" happens the moment unauthorized persons read the document. Even if it was on private property (i.e. i have a confidential letter in my briefcase, and it falls out in your office) the persons finding the document do not have an inherent right to read the letter. You see cases of this when a company sends a fax, at the bottom they include the blurb should the fax be sent to someone else by accident.
While e-mails are not in a sealed container (unless encrypted) a person has to go out of their way to inspect the e-mail. They have to, at the very least, double click (opening) the e-mail. The physical aspects of it are not really the issue, so much as the intent - the right to read someones messages.
I think every person and organization should be expected to follow the same privacy rights of the end users as the telephone companies. My reasoning goes to a much simpler level then things like someones "right" to privacy...my reasoning goes to this: I do not want people to read my private letters, so I realize that people do not want me to read their private letters (unless sent to me). I guess the Golden Rule applies here (for me at least).
Now since we live in a world of crime, if the gov't needs a legitimate reason to read my letters then so be it....unfortunately "legitimate" is a negotiable term.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
...an ISP does not automatically grant any ISP the powers of the FBI...you probably need to read up your philosophy again. Arguments and fallacies would probably make a good start
All straight things must come to a bend
If not, then while curious, the fact does nothing to change Ashcroft's appearance.
What part of not wanting others to have spying rights is inconsistant with Ashcroft as a rights-stomping totalitarian?
The enemies of Democracy are
It seem like a reversal of policty for the DoJ, but perhaps it is because they want to be the _only_ group to be able to snoop mail.
Also, if everyone _assumes_ someone is reading their email, then it might lead to real efforts to use encryption by default in email clients - exactly what the DoJ doesn't want.
I run a small ISP. 75% of my customer base is dialup.
Quite often DialUpUserA will call and say they can't get their email, nothing is coming in!
Mailbox size? 5megs. This is because BroadbandUserB sent them a funny movie, or pictures off of a digital camera, etc., something that took them 30 seconds to send on DSL/Cable.
So I have to open the mailbox, verify there is a large message. Then I'm asked Who is it from? What is it? What is the subject?
Getting them to delete it through webmail is always a pain, 9 times out of 10 OE is downloading in the background locking their mailbox, so when they can't download or delete it via webmail they STILL call me!
Laws to prohibit ISPs from reading other users email is a good idea, I don't LIKE to do it! I feel like I'm violating someones privacy.
However, the ISPs also need to be protected from DialUpUserB, who would do anything to sue someone and retire claiming that THEY READ MY EMAIL!
ISP tech support often requires the reading of a users email, as long as there is protection built into the laws that let's me still do my job without the worry of being sued, I'm all for it.
The email decision came out YESTERDAY, making it impossible for Mark to have written something about it last week.
...don't use usernames like "sluttygirl232" and "sexyteen69". 'Cause I'll betcha that those mailboxes get read about 10 to 100 times as often as those for "tcpgeek1980" and "fatslob44". :)
Why does the government not merely carry letters, but monopolize that service? If it were merely about delivery to remote and uneconomic places, why wouldn't the government remove its monopoly and do only those deliveries nobody else bothers with? If it were about money, why not carry far more lucrative parcels? Because it wants the opportunity to steam your letters open, snoop through them and censor what you say.
In that regard, email is already better.
If your ISP can't read users' incoming email, it can't know what is and is not SPAM.
If your ISP can't read users' outgoing email, it can't know who is and who is not a SPAMMER.
The question isn't the act; it is the intent.
For many years I used to work for ISP's as an admin. It never ceased to amaze me that people actually think email is a private communications tool.
People do not seem to get the idea that these are messages stored on a server, waiting to be retrieved. Very unlike phone calls or letters in a sealed envelope.
And now some people want turn their ignorance into reality, making it illegal to read mailspools.
The world never ceases to amaze me...
Wait. NONE of that is true. We have all of those things covering private businesses;
No, we do not. As an investor to a company, you don't have any rights to see ANY confidential corporate memos. You don't have rights to see much more than released financial statements. And if you do, and you act on that information, you get charged with insider trading.
If you want high speed digital service, MOST people in the US do not have a choice, it's the cable company or no one. In cities, you have a choice, but it's between Cable or DSL; and remember the latter forces you to own an otherwise unused and uselss land line. You can choose, but aside from financial statements and hearsay, you don't have rights to access any of their records to see how well they actually provide service, how oversold their service might be, how many complaints their helpdesk gets a month. No, you can get much more information out of the government that from a private company.
If the gov't sets up an ISP offerring free wireless broadband, you MUST participate -- the gov't doesn't ASK you whether you want to pay taxes to support it.
Nobody *has* to use a goverment ISP. Just like nobody has to use Time Warner Cable. If you want to be online, then that may be your only choice to get online, but you are not forced to be online.
As for having to pay for it through taxes, that's a moot point. You have to pay for the post office, pay to have roads built, pay for support of the arts, to provide police protection for KKK marches, to build a new sports stadium. You pay for a lot of things that you don't agree with, or don't derive any beneifts from, the gvmt spends money for everyone, so skip it.
If they later decide to use their rights as an ISP to monitor everything, again we have no right to prevent that -- it's their property, even though they took it from you by force.
The ISP has rights to monitor data traffic, but does not have rights to look into the contents; the email data is not their property. If it were, then the ISP could be held financially responsible for all illegal file sharing, for child porn illegally stored on their servers, for SPAM coming from their systems. They fought hard not to be held responsible.
They, be it a government or private ISP, cannot consider all email stored on their servers as their property, otherwise it would violate the copyright laws. It could also then be ruled that anything that's stored on my systems is my property, which would include software, and any music played through my system. So no, the government can't arbitrarily make that judgement.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
It's kind of like leaving a sofa on the curb not expecting it to be removed or like not having curtains on your windows and expecting people to not look in as the drive by.
I disagree. An ISP is a company that has agreed to provide the user a service, therefore it's more like having a mail man and expecting him not to open your mail... except, of course, that the mail man gets in trouble, deep deep trouble, if he is caught.
So if Fed-ex or UPS wants to open and look through your parcels... I guess that is just fine by you.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
No, we do not. As an investor to a company, you don't have any rights to see ANY confidential corporate memos.
/trading/ (buying or selling stock). Informing the public is neither trading nor insider; nor is refusing to be a customer; nor are lawsuits. All are powerful actions against a private company; the second (refusing to be a customer) is the useless against the gov't, and the third (lawsuit) is only mostly effective against the gov't (remember, they can write themselves exceptions to their own laws).
Whoops, I missed one thing -- we don't have FOAI. That's the ONE safeguard you mentioned that we can't get from corporations that, in theory, we can get from our government.
Unfortunately, there's two problems with this.
First, the information you'd be asking for is something like "did you ever read any of my emails?" That sort of info is easily hidden, to say the least, and trivial enough that it would almost never be demanded (from government OR corporations).
Second, making FOIA or anything like it apply to anything other than government and at the miniscule scales you're asking for would be the opposite of what you want (privacy).
You don't have rights to see much more than released financial statements. And if you do, and you act on that information, you get charged with insider trading.
Nonsense. The only sort of action that could recieve that charge involves
If you want high speed digital service, MOST people in the US do not have a choice, it's the cable company or no one.
Yes, if you restrict yourself enough you can find yourself with only one option (and you might decide that it's not an acceptable option). So stop restricting yourself. Move, or use lower-speed access. Whatever floats your boat.
Nobody *has* to use a goverment ISP. Just like nobody has to use Time Warner Cable. If you want to be online, then that may be your only choice to get online, but you are not forced to be online.
I didn't say "use"; I said "participate", and I immediately explained what I meant. But thank you for expanding on my rebuttal to your claim that people could be forced to use bad ISPs.
As for having to pay for it through taxes, that's a moot point. You have to pay for the post office, pay to have roads built, pay for support of the arts, to provide police protection for KKK marches, to build a new sports stadium. You pay for a lot of things that you don't agree with, or don't derive any beneifts from, the gvmt spends money for everyone, so skip it.
I'm not complaining about "not gaining benefits". I'm complaining about not having the total capital available to make private ISPs successful. I definitely don't like being taxed; but I'm pointing out a different fact now, that this tax both reduces the amount of capital available AND reduces the demand level enormously, so that you and I would almost certainly not be able to find ISPs that offer privacy-favorable contracts for any price.
The ISP has rights to monitor data traffic, but does not have rights to look into the contents; the email data is not their property.
A brilliant argument (seriously). Unfortunately, it doesn't conform to current laws, and any laws that would make it conformable would also be extremely deadly to freedom of information in general.
The problem is that information/data isn't property. It's in a category of its own. Some people are attempting to make old laws apply to it by calling it "intellectual property", but the old laws tend to be bad fits. New theories will have to be constructed on this; until they are, I'll use the analogy of me standing in your backyard. You have every right to look at me while I'm there and collect all the information about my appearance (where I am, what I'm holding), even if you gave me permission to stand there -- unless, of course, we have some kind of agreement that you won't.
If it were, then the ISP could be held f
I appear to have completely misunderstood you and the target of your reply.
:/
Please accept my apologies.
Nice to meet you as well
.
If I had a real