Maine Court Hears Case On E-Mail Privacy

Rev Wally writes "A case before the Maine Supreme Court could change rules regarding an ISP revealing the owner of an e-mail address. It seems that some one (known in court documents only as John Doe) sent an e-mail of an unflattering cartoon of the plaintiff, Ronald Fitch, and his wife. Doe had registered for an e-mail address using Fitch's name. Doe's lawyer is arguing that the e-mail is protected as free speech, and the the ISP cannot be forced to divulge the names of subscribers except in a criminal case. Fitch is arguing that he may be a victem of identity theft."

Comments

Re:related issues

[Yolegoman]

What if I don't send a "From" header at all, only a "Reply-To" header (with someone else's email address?) ? I mean, I'm not saying the message is _from_ the other person, only that replies need to be _sent_ to them. With no "From" header, it's the same as posting AC.

It's Email. No privacy. No assurance that what you are reading was actually sent by who the message says it was sent from.

Differing interpretations based on lack of facts

[AceCaseOR]

From reading comments on the article and the article itself, I've got the impression that we don't have all the facts. From where I see it, it breaks down like this

• If Doe registered the E-Mail address ronald.fitch@isp.net then it's not identity theft, he's just being a dick.
• If Doe altered his header information to have his name appear in E-Mail clients as "Ronald Fitch" rather than "John Doe" (aka "Pulling a Burke"), then he's just a dick, and it's not Identity Theft.
• If Doe registered for an E-Mail account at an ISP and, on the forms, said his name was Ronald Fitch, then at least he can be charged with fraud - by the ISP. Identity Theft charges are up to debate.
• If John Doe not only gave Ronald Fitch's name to the ISP as his name when he signed up, but also set up billing so that Fitch was billed (or would be called if Doe failed to pay), then that would count as both fraud and, most likely, identity theft.

So, is anyone from Maine, or even better, the community where this whole disturbance is taking place on Slashdot? If so, please enlighten us.

Major Innacuracies?

[Ironsides]

Electronic communications leave a trail, unlike letters and phone calls, which can be truly anonymous, Levy said. If powerful entities can sue simply to identify their critics, free speech will be chilled, he said. "That's what makes these Internet cases so scary."

Letters can be traced by the postal mark, but can still be pretty anonymous at that. Phone Calls are not anonymous at all. The phone company keeps a record of what phone calls what number, and then of course there is caller ID. I don't know where this guy got thinking that phone calls were "truly anonymous". Even phone calls from pay phones can be traced back to the origin. Even if the user on the other end cant be.

Re:Major Innacuracies?

[taustin]

Phone calls can be as anonymous as postal mail, if you pay attention to the details. Payphones are one way. Another is a prepaid cellphone. If the "user on the other end" can't be traced, it's anonymous.

Re:No contest case of slander

[Macadamizer]

"No, if you claim to be a specific Ronald Fitch, and you aren't, that's identity theft."

No, at least not legally. Identity theft requires more than just using someone's name. I haven't reviewed the indentity theft statutes in every state, but every state I have looked at requires for identity theft:

1. First name and last name, or frst initial and last name;

and 2. personal information.

Both have to be there for identity theft to be an appropriate charge.

"Personal information" is different from state to state (a little), but generally includes things such as social security number, mother's maiden name, place of birth, drivers license number, those sorts of thing that are not generally public record, and are of the type of information necessary to open, use or access credit card accounts, bank accounts, etc.

Things like phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, AIM names, etc., are not generally considered personal information under identity theft statutes, and nothing that is public record is considered personal infromation.

"Neither the summary or the article really explain what's goin on here."

Yep.

Re:First (ontopic) post?

[nickname225]

I am a lawyer - and while parody or satire may be a defense to copyright infringement - this does not seem to be a copyright case. It also doesn't really seem to be an "Identity theft" case - at least not a criminal one. There is, in my opinion, no identity theft here. The defendant did not defraud anyone by his masquerade. The general rule is - you can use any name you like as long as you do not use it to commit fraud. Since, most likely, the defendant simply used the plaintiff's name to obtain a free e-mail account or else paid for the account using his own money - there is no fraud on the e-mail provider. I would have to read the case to figure out what exactly the complaint is - but from the article - I can see nothing really actionable.