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."

Comments

Kind of link not having curtains

[stecoop]

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.

Re:Kind of link not having curtains

[garcia]

The property owner of the email should be protecting it via encryption or its there for anyone to read.

Laws like the ones are talking about will eventually cause the population to do exactly that but it's not exactly as if the criminals weren't doing that already.

You will be labelled a traitor if you protect yourself and [tinfoil warning] you could eventually be held against your will for crimes against the government for protecting your personal privacy [/tinfoil].

Remember that anyone who encrypts their email obviously has something to hide and doesn't support their government and their own freedom!

Re:Kind of link not having curtains

[stecoop]

Remember that anyone who encrypts their email obviously has something to hide and doesn't support their government and their own freedom!

There are so many sides to a coin - case in point you brought up a very good flip side.

But lets say that enough people started recognizing that email isn't *gasp* private and, visioning everyone knowing email isn't private; that all email (lets extend it to internet traffic) became encrypted. This ruling only helps the civil libertarian groups on getting the word out to protect the civil liberties at an individual level.

Re:Kind of link not having curtains

[maxpublic]

Or, let's recognize that email is just the 21st century version of paper mail, and should be treated as such. There's no logical reason why mail transmitted electronically should have less protection than mail transmitted by post.

Max

Re:Kind of link not having curtains

[the_weasel]

Hardly true. The postal service is government run - the laws that make it illegal to read sealed mail are part of the system of trust that allows us to place our private corrospondence in the hands of the government. It is part of the service you purchase when you buy your stamps.

E-Mail is not run by the government. It is run mostly by private industry - though anyone can set up thier own mail server no one can argue that private industry does not own the vast majority of hardware and resources that process and transmit the bulk of email.

So - the question to ask yourselves is - do you believe it is the governments job to legislate how a company or even private individual uses and handles data that is hosted and or transferred through their property?

I don't really have an answer, but I find it a fascinating question.

By all means - encrypt your email if you feel the need, but lets not get the government into the habit of legisating the Internet.

Well, if they want to snoop...

[Pig Hogger]

All they need is to declare that the FBI is an ISP... Voilà, problem solved!

Let me get this right

[Sqwubbsy]

John Ashcroft is fighting for greater privacy for email?
Wonder how the groupthink will justify this.

Re:Let me get this right

[kfg]

Wonder how the groupthink will justify this.

They wish to consolodate the power of surviellence to themselves, and themselves alone.

That way they can not only snoop on the people, but on the snoopers as well; and all without having to worry about being snooped on.

Pretty slick setup really, if they're allowed to pull it off.

KFG

There's an issue here?

[CSG_SurferDude]

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.

Why is ISP mail readding bad?

[Theobon]

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!

Re:Why is ISP mail readding bad?

[paradizelost]

How would this help prevent spam, with all the spam filters, etc... already in place, your ISP isn't going to read your email and delete all of the spam for you, especially not if it is getting past their spam filters.

it is an invasion of privacy, they are service providers, not regulators.

Either way, carnivore sees everything you do anyway, but being from a small town with a small town ISP, i'd rather not have my neighbor who works at the ISP reading my email.

Especially since there may be usernames,passwords, etc.. emailed from institutions like my bank contained in those emails, and no, the bank doesn't give the option of the emails being sent encrypted.

Re:Why is ISP mail readding bad?

[AviLazar]

If the document was labeled confidential - yes. Poor security measures do not invalidate your right to privacy. Why?: One of the reasons for this is because some people can't afford high security measures, second security measures may fail, three security measures can be broken, and a few other reasons i cannot recall.
A great example I received from a law class I took (I am no legal expert, but my professor is) was a hypothetical situation: If I leave my car engine running, with the windows open and ten thousand dollars on the seat... Would someone who took the car and/or money be liable both criminal and civil courts? Yes.
Fast forward to computer: If I send a text email and at the top of the email it says "the following message is intended for John Schmoe ONLY", anyone reading it is in violation of privacy acts (unless they are authorized to do so by groups like the proper authorities, or contracts.)

email should have the same standard

[SpamKu]

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

Read my mail

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Seems to me...

[xstonedogx]

...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.

Re:Seems to me...

[Tyndmyr]

I don't see a reason to create a law for it at all. Sure, none of us want others snooping through our mail... encryption exists for a reason. Also, if a company gets a reputation for snooping in customers mail, what do you think that will do for their business?

Let the free market deal with it.

Stored Communications Act?

[spiritraveller]

You can read the June opinion here.

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.

This is a good reason why ISPs are private groups

[ShatteredDream]

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.

Notice it was DOJ asking for reconsideration?

[jordandeamattson]

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