Slashdot Mirror
NJ Supreme Court Rules For Internet Privacy
dprovine writes "The New Jersey Supreme Court
has ruled that ISPs can't release customer information without a warrant. The unanimous decision reads in part 'We now hold that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by Article I ... of the New Jersey Constitution, in the subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers — just as New Jersey citizens have a privacy interest in their bank records stored by banks and telephone billing records kept by phone companies.'"
What EULA? They don't license you anything. This isn't software we are talking about you know. It's a contract you sign with your ISP. Their services in exchange for your money.
On the less pedantic side, do you really think the ISPs want to give your data away? There is no profit in doing so, in fact it might even cause customer loss, which is bad for business. No, the reason they give out your data is because they think they have a legal obligation to do so. Now the court has said it isn't, so they won't.
As a card carrying member of the ACLU, I regret this sort of case, but it is never the less the proper outcome. For all the people who hate the ACLU because the defend the "guilty" because of a technicality of law, remember this sort of case.
Sometimes the question of an individual's guilt is secondary to the precedent which would be formed. It is absolutely the space between the rock and the hard place. Do you let a criminal go free or do you let an abuse of power go unchecked?
More often than not, it is a "guilty" person who is on the receiving end of injustice such as invasion of privacy or violation of the 4th amendment. It is unfortunate that we don't have more clearly innocent people to protect. Generally speaking, police believe the "criminal" to be guilty. More often than not, they are, but this does not excuse a violation of constitutional rights to get a conviction.
Our rights are in place to prevent the innocent from being falsely convicted by creating a system of checks and balances that is supposed to prevent abuse by police, prosecutors, etc. Inherent in the system is the acknowledgment that people are corrupt and corruptible but the hope that not all people are in the same pockets.
My favorite example is O.J. Simpson. I am as confident that he killed his wife as I am that police planted evidence to get a conviction.
As a historical note, that's the way the Founders meant things to work.
The Federalist Papers tried to reassure people that the proposed new Federal government couldn't succeed as a tyranny because the states would defend the rights of state citizens.
This has been largely forgotten since the national government had to step in and override state-level oppression of African-Americans.