Slashdot Mirror
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."
IANAL but wouldn't this be considered as satire?
[sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
Wow, if this happens watch out for Bill Gates. He'll win so many lawsuits that he'll be rich!
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
s/victem/victim/
I'll probably be modded down for this...
[...] may be a victem of identity theft.
Only on slashdot...
Trolling is a art,
" Ronald Fitch sued Doe last year, claiming that an e-mail with an ironic message and an unflattering cartoon of Fitch and his wife - which Doe sent out under Fitch's name - amounted to identity theft."
so did Mr Doe make an email account ronald.fitch@gmail.com and use that? Or did he actually break into Fitch's email account to send the email?
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?
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
If John Doe had sent the picture as a hard copy through the postal service or worse posted this throughout Ronald Fitch's neighborhood this would be a no contest case of slander.
That he used an e-mail address that had Ronald Fitch's name in it? With the dozen gmail invites I have I could make a dozen Ronald Fitch addresses. This is not identity theft. If I used those addresses to solicit his credit card information from the credit card companies than yes that's theft.
It's just some guy being a jerk.
-Teiresias
Since the justice brought it up, I'm now intensely curious as to why John Doe is hiding.
I understand that there are some important principles involved here, but I'm not ready to accept that they are John Doe's overriding reasons to spend a lot of money on legal costs.
(Maybe that's a little cynical.)
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
If it's in my name it belongs to me. If it's in your name, it belongs to you.
Fitch should ask that the ISP turn over the account to him since it is in his name. Then he can get access to any emails sent from or to that address.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
How many peopl share your name? How many want an e-mail address with that name in it? I wouldn't call it identity theft, even if it wasn't his name. If nothing else, the insipid idea that someone using a name identical to yours is stealing your identity is absurd. I know that my wonderfully common name has to have hundreds of others bearing my name and initials and none of them are, in fact, me. Things like SSID attempt to discern among people; names don't.
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.
Since when does using the same name as someone else constitute identity theft? Maybe the cartoon was sent as Ronald Fitch the author. Or Ronald Fitch the ob-gyn specialist from Missouri. Or any one of the other hundred Ronald Fitchs showed up in my google search.
People need some basic writing training. What happened? He sent an email cartoon? To who? Himself? What does that have to do with him using the other guys name as his email address?
What's at stake in this case, and what does it have to do with privacy? It sounds like simple defamation.
That summary just sucks.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
How is that identity theft?
Fat-finger "whitehouse.org" instead of "whitehouse.gov" some time.
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
Victem? VictEm?
Do you bastards want me to write you a spell checker? Oh, I'll do it alright. A little bit of longest common substring magic, and you won't look like a herd of idiots.
Just give me the green light, and I'll make it happen. You know where to find me.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
- 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.Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
Com'on folks. If copying a song you haven't paid for isn't stealing, then neither is using someone else's name in an e-mail.
Does Mr. Fitch no longer have an identity as a result of John Doe's action? Where is Mr. Doe physically storing Mr. Fitch's identity? Without finding that stolen identity in Mr. Doe's posession, I don't think Mr. Fitch has much of a case.
Information wants to be free too.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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.
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).
paintball
eVictEm?
emt 377 emt 4
Does this mean that I won't be able to check into hotels as Abe Froman any more?
The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
Sounds more like forgery, than identity theft. Maybe the plantiff should have sued under the CAN-SPAM act instead.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think that if the person that sent out the email had ginned up a Hotmail account and sent it from there, they'd have reason to claim parody/satire and have a basis for claiming anonymity. But creating an account under the target's name, they stepped over the line into fraud.
Then again, I just use my sense; IANAL :-)
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
What if the person being satirized was named John Doe? Would an anonymous message from "John Doe" receive the same consideration?
Should the name "Ronald Fitch" Receive any more protection than the name "John Doe" (or, for that matter, "John Smith", also used for anonymity, though less often)? Or even the infamous Alan Smithee?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
And he would been caught the first month Fitch received the bill and checked the Service Address on it. This isn't even hard.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Represent!
mount
Was any of this information used to:
- open a credit account without his knowledge...?
- extract sensitive information from public offices...?
- swindle his bank account...?
- leave delinquent accounts in his name...?
- induce collection agencies to confront him...?
- damage his credit record...?
- damage his legal integrity...?
These are much more serious than Mr. Doe impersonating him in an email address.The defendant used the email account to distribute a less-than-flattering cartoon, not to secure credit accounts or embezzle money. That fits the definition of libel, not identity theft.
And to be impartial, impersonation does not fall under protection of free speech. Just ask any divorced parent whose children were abducted by the ex-spouse traveling under an assumed name.
Both parties are really long stretches of reasoning. I can't believe the Maine Supreme Court is hearing this.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
is using a pseudonym "Identity theft"? Where did this guy cross the line (legally) from one to the other?
Jim Magoo sounds almost as obviously a fake name as John Doe (apologies to any Jim Magoo or John Doe out there), so if saying you're Jim Magoo is identity theft, then is the court stealing John Doe's identity by calling this guy John Doe? (Assuming, of course, this is not his real name, which would turn out to be a very weird coincidence.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You've got a lot of the facts wrong...I know them very well being from the community and knowing the people involved. First you need to know that there's been a rather bitter personal feud going on as a backgdrop here and this is not the only incident, but rather the straw that broke the camel's back. Second, you should know that this is not the only incident and that more than one person is likely involved -- this is going to get bigger. Fitch recently had to get a restraining order against another jerk who was logging onto the Internet and claiming to be him and ordering stuff/asking to be contacted/etc. So he was getting calls from Pitney Bowes about postage meters and the like. Criminal action is underway there. Third, Ron is a great guy and willing to help all his neighbors. I won't go into the details about some of the group that has been causing trouble, but the latter instance above was subject to a criminal subpoena and the current case listed here about the email, the Judge in the case, on the Record, said that clearly a crime has been committed here. So Time Warner knows who did it (and the whole community pretty much suspects who did it too) and told the Judge. The defendant obviously did not want people to know he had done such a scummy thing, on Xmas even, and has been fighting the disclosure. You imagine having all your friends sent a email showing you fat, your wife scared up and your dead dog, on Xmas eve -- under an account that has your name. Stupid idiot used Ron's dead dog's name as the password so it was easy to break into the account -- guess he should have deleted the cc list on the email huh :-) So the stupid thing about this is that the police will probably issue a criminal subpoena if this case fails -- they're already involved and this is a big case in Maine -- and so this is all just delaying the inevitable. If it is who I think it is, then the mistress he's been keeping on the island (and reportedly with whom bought multimillion dollars worth of property under an LLC, reportedly) is going to be more front page news methinks...particularly since the person I'm thinking of is the CEO of a Maine corporation. But I could be wrong...we'll find out soon enough I think. By the way, the one thing the article did not say is that Fitch was represented by one lawyer, there were like 14 on the other side, so many that I heard the Judge asked them that if this was not such a big deal, why was so much money being spent to defend against it? That's a good question, isn't it!
Are your evaluations of dick vs. identity thief fact or opinion?
I don't know if "Identity theft" is legally theft, but I'll take a stab. Theft is taking someone else's proberty while depriving them of it as well. In illegal copying of music or movies, etc., the item being taken is the exclusive license to distribute and profit from a work - is this property? If it is, then mass distribution of a work might be considered theft, although not necessarily the copying. However, the "object" being "stolen" is a right, which usually isn't treated as a stolen object; objects exist independently of the involved parties, while the licence exists only within the bounds of an agreement between parties (the holder, the gov't, and the people).
Identity theft, however, fits the definition of theft better. The person using someone's else identity will prevent that person from doing what they should (based on their actions) be able to - by running up debts, the person misrepresenting himself deprives the misrepresented of the use of his identity. The identity is not a license from the gov't, but something existing independently of it (the gov't may validate it, but since people exist independently of it, their identity is not contingent on the gov't).
I wish i could mod you up.
They live off the coast of Maine on a small Island where everyone knows everyone else.
And chances are that they are old money.
I am sure that everyone on that tiny Island would like to know who the jerk is. So he doesn't want anyone to know.
I think that the problem of name usurpation is serious enough that there ought to be some kind of way to prevent people from doing it.
In this case the guy sent hateful emails that he tried to attribute to someone else. It was a sleezey thing to do. I hope they find out who did it. This doesn't seem like a freedom of speech issue, or even freedom of expression.
Indeed a (this) name is not unique.
But when it comes with a picture of this particular person holding the name in real life the "identity theft" claim does get a little more credible...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Not meaning to be a dick, I just really wasn't sure what the legal precedent was for identity theft. It seems to me that you could reasonably say that he intended to and did steal the person's identity by sending emails with his name. Especially since there was no reason to do so. Of course, this type of thing is done all the time as pranks.
In order to form an intelligent opinion on this issue, I'm going to need some more information.
Specifically, I'm going to need to see the ironic satire cartoon of Fitch & wife, along with a real photo for comparison.
I think I'll send him an email asking for it...
I think Ronald Fitch is the one being a dick.
John Doe was objiously not trying to fool anyone into thinking that Ronald Fitch would e-mail out an unflattering cartoon of himself. "Ronald Fitch" was just a pseudonym chosen especially to give no clue of the originating party and ensure anonymity, as well as identify the subject of the cartoon.
Proof of defamation (or is it slander?) requires:
1. proof of intent to harm
2. proof of material harm
3. proof of falsehood
I think #3 will produce most of Fitch's trouble in getting actual damages, whether or not he ever finds out who John Doe is. Parodies always bring out a particular subjective point of view.
I would think John Doe would want his identity to be known, but then again, I haven't seen the picture. Does anyone happen to have a link the the picture?
Huh? What you are describing is accessing an email account without the accountholder's permission, which is technically illegal. Good thing you posted as an AC.
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
And exactly how can Mr Fitch prove someone is guilty of identity theft? Simply filling out false information for an email account is far from identity theft. I mean hell 90% of the hotmail users are guilty if thats the case. Alas, I hope Joe Momma doesn't file suit against me for identity theft because I registered that name for my GMAIL account.
Sounds like what we have is the Hatfields and McCoys, Mr X or Mr Doe should remain anonymous because any name can be attached to an email. Mr Fitch should just forget about it. I sympathize with him about having the image circulated, it is in poor taste and merely demonstrates the childish nature of the aggressor.
However tieng the legal system up like this is plain stupidity. He either needs to forgive and forget or move the fuck out of town.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Defamation is spoken, we have a case of liable (printed slander) here.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I didnt read this the last time you posted it, could you please post it once more?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
This case doesn't involve the government, but it covers similiar ground. It's one thing for me to say "Bob Smith says dogs should be served in restaurants." (And I don't mean as patrons.)
It's a different thing for me to represent myself as some Bob Smith and say the same thing.
It's yet another thing for me to represent myself as a specific Bob Smith and say the same thing.
The first case could be defamation. (It depends on whether Bob Smith actually said it, whether his community would consider it offensive, etc.) The second case is clearly protected free speech. The final case is putting words into another person's mouth.
I don't believe it's identity theft, but it certainly seems to be the type of bad act that should strip that person's anonymity. It's the type of act that could result in immediate termination in the workplace, professional sanctions, etc.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Pitney Bowes calls me about postage stuff all the time, and it's not because someone submitted my name to them. Well, some company did, sure, but not some random neighbor. This Fitch guy is sounding more and more paranoid by the post.
I hereby order you, the individual who is illegally stealing my identity, to please cease, desist, and turn over the "smooth wombat" name that is rightfully mine. Failure to do so immediately will result in civil and criminal proceedings against you.
Thanks in advance, Smooth Q. Wombat
Your friends should a) know your real e-mail address b) know you well enough to know whether a message from you is genuine. If you don't think they are capable of realising when they get spoof e-mails, digitally sign all of your messages. It is not hard to do and it is very effective. There is absolutely no excuse for complaining that people may be misled into believing that you sent something if you do not take steps to ensure that they can verify real communications. GPG - free, easy, effective. No excuse.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
You are so wrong and missing the whole point. According to you, i can use your name and identity and send emails to your friends all day long with no retribution. Well, perhaps you would get no retribution legally, but judging from that behavour I would immediatly see that you no longer require your kneecaps and will forcefully remove them at a time of my convenience.
And no, I couldn't give a shit what my karma is.
Given the subject matter, I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw that. Perhaps you mean libel.
Brightening /. users days one chuckle at a time ;P
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!