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

First (ontopic) post?

[MasterSLATE]

IANAL but wouldn't this be considered as satire?

related issues

[CdBee]

Suppose I change the "from" address in my email client's settings to the address of another person, and then use my forged email header to post to an email list or web-community to which the other person is a member. Would that count as identity theft, spoofing or something else?

Must be a slow day in Maine

[SlayerofGods]

If the Maine Supreme Court has time to hear this. I guess it's setting precedent, but this just sounds like a really stupid case.

Anonymity vs. Identity Theft

[Stormy Dragon]

If the ISP was trying to protect the anonymity of its users, in these sense of not revealing who ObscureNetHandle@isp.com is, they might have an arguement. But that's not what's happening--the users in question aren't trying to be anonymous; they're trying to impersonate someone else. Arguing that's protected as free speech is like arguing that right of free assembly means I'm allowed to break into your house.

Ronald Fitch

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO, it's clear that Doe is maliciously trying to impersonate Fitch, and that's not right. It might be legal, but it's not right.

And I would bet $20 that Doe's real name is not Ronald Fitch.

Whether it's slander is not the issue.

[raehl]

YANAL.

The issue is whether the plaintiff can compel the ISP to reveal the name of the person who may have committed the slander.

Using your analogy, let's say that I really don't like my neighbor, so I make an unflattering flyer, go to the printer and have them make a bunch of copies of it, and then distribute them to the neighborhood.

My neighbor figures out that the printer made the copies for me. Can the neighbor compel the printer to reveal who they made the copies for?

Now, let's say that shortly after I distribute the flyers, my neighbor is killed under questionable circumstances. Can the police, with a court order, compel the printer to reveal who had the flyers made as part of a criminal investigation?

Absolutely.

The question before the court is whether, in a civil suit, the plaintiff has the right to compel a 3rd party to reveal identifying information about a civil defendent. The plaintiff is also attempting to argue that they should be able to get the information because the defendant committed a criminal act, but criminal enforcement is the pervue of the prosecutor/criminal court, not a civil suit/court.

As for whether the picture is a "no-contest case of slander" (whatever that's supposed to mean), it certainly is NOT a clear-cut case of slander. An unflattering picture is merely unflattering. In order for it to constitute slander, the picture has to depict something which is not true, AND you must prove the author of the picture should have KNOWN is not true, AND a reasonable person, based on the picture, would have to believe the picture is true (i.e. the picture isn't satire).

Re:Whether it's slander is not the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

If slander is the case, then, Fitch should proceed on that point, to get the identity, as you pointed out.

But by him arguing it as a case of "identity theft" (because that has a criminal, not just civil, component to it) he's not trying to play that card, and he doesn't have an argument.

By arguing identity theft, he's essentially stating that he has an inherent "right" to any and all forms of on-line identity that he thinks about for himself, and that the John Doe has misappropriated that identity prior to Fitch actually establishing that identity for himself, and thus the John Doe identity should be revealed to him.

Sounds like a case of one asshole getting inside the head of another asshole and pushing his buttons, and the second asshole (fitch) is trying now to push back even harder, of course. We don't know what started it, why it continues, etc.

It really should be handled on the "Jerry Springer Show".