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

billg

[justforaday]

Wow, if this happens watch out for Bill Gates. He'll win so many lawsuits that he'll be rich!

No contest case of slander

[teiresias]

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.

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.

Same name equals identity theft?

[mopower70]

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.

Re:Same name equals identity theft?

[stratjakt]

It becomes identify theft when you claim to be a specific Ronald Fitch, whom you are not.

If my name happened to be Rob Malda, and I stood on the hilltops shouting "I'm Rob Malda and I like to touch little boys!", it's not ID theft.

If I was shouting "I'm Rob Malda - founder of slashdot.org and assistant marketing director for Apple - and I like to touch little boys!", a line has been crossed. Because now, I'm pretending to be someone I'm not.

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.

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).