Expectation of Privacy Extended to Email

An anonymous reader writes "In a 6th circuit court decision [PDF] today 4th amendment expectation of privacy rights were extended to email. 'The ruling by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio upholds a lower court ruling that placed a temporary injunction on e-mail searches in a fraud investigation against Steven Warshak, who runs a supplements company best known for a male enhancement product called Enzyte. Warshak hawks Enzyte using "Smiling Bob" ads that have gained some notoriety.'"

Comments

Patriot act

[CaptainPatent]

While this does not deal specifically with the patriot act, this will hopefully help set a precedent that a lot of the rights we "gave up" with respect to wiretapping in the patriot act will not be tolerated.

Re:too bad

[LWATCDR]

Yea so you can go to jail for just having an Ethernet sniffer!
Really people should have the same expectation of privacy in an email as they do with a postcard. None at all.
It is clear text.

It's about time

[TFGeditor]

"In a 6th circuit court decision [PDF] today 4th amendment expectation of privacy rights were extended to email."

Finally, we are getting some rights restored/extended rather than taken/curtailed.

Re:It's about time

[spikedvodka]

What I want to know though is: How does this jive with AUPs that explicitly state "There is no expectation of Privacy"? and specifically, with respect to private employers, and public sector employers?

Also, how does this work with State requirements that we (as a company) keep copies of everything sent over e-mail?

Re:too bad

[Vancorps]

Don't know how email works in your organization but here it's encrypted until it hits the first MTA. An ethernet sniffer won't get you anywhere. A postcard also cannot be removed from the mailbox by anyone other than the recipient, a representative, or through a court order. That sounds about right for email.

Just because it's realistic to say that a few people might read the postcard while handling your mail doesn't mean that the police should be able to just grab all your mail and rifle through it without a warrant.

Re:too bad

[LWATCDR]

I agree that email should require a court order for the police to search it however just as two people holding a conversation in a public place have no expectations of privacy the same is true of email.

At my office we just got an email from a customer and she included her credit card number in the EMAIL! No we didn't tell her to send it but I hope like heck that she doesn't read this story and think that it is alright to do in the future!

Re:Well...

[iknownuttin]

Inmate "Smiling" Bob will be "male enhancing" his cornhole.

you know, when I first saw those ads, I thought they were some promo for a new comedy show or something. But as time went on, it became apparent that they were actually selling a "product". Those ads are so over the top ludicrous, I don't know whether to be amused at that company's boldness to sell such a product or pity the folks who buy it thinking it will work. Then again, there may be folks who buy it for a joke or as a gag gift for someone else - that's the only reason that I think of where I would actually buy it.

Re:Does anyone else see this as a bad thing?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Extending 4th amendment privacy rights to e-mail has nothing to do with your employer. It only restricts government action.

Re:Well...

[scumdamn]

Best two word comment ever. Best comment to directly quote a parent ever. We need Slashdot awards.

Re:too bad

[imgunby]

I don't believe your analogy (which we've all beaten to death here) is entirely accurate though. Certainly, I will concede that the email headers are like the postcard; no reasonable expectation to privacy, any more than the addressee is "secret." However, I believe that there is sufficient reason to presume that the body of the message is reasonably "private" since normal internet equipment does not need to examine that information to route it across the web. And for the "difficulty" in sniffing that "secret" body content... I'd guess it's about as hard as it is to open someone's physical mailbox and open what's inside. Not hard, but not legal either. Having the ability to do something doesn't make it right or legal, why should packets in the ether be any different?

imgunby

Re:too bad

[DamnStupidElf]

To be clear, the decision today didn't look at that question, rather the question of whether a warrant is required to search email at all. I see that as so blatantly obvious that I'm shocked the government would even question it. Look, government, hey, you know for 250 years courts have consistently told you that you need a warrant to search just about everything that isn't an emergency, so by now you should be used to it.

How much leeway does the U.S. government have with the postal service to begin with? Are postcards considered "in plain sight" during transit, for instance? What about when they arrive? You have to open an envelope and pull the letter out to read it, but cops with a generic search warrant or who are invited in can almost certainly glance at the postcards you have taped to your fridge.

I think what Congress really needs to do is specify that sending things over the Internet is equivalent to broadcasting them with radio waves in terms of privacy; there is none. Encrypt, or suffer the consequences.