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.'"

5 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Sure, privacy is nice by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    But those poor folks still have to live in New Jersey.

    1. Re:Sure, privacy is nice by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, you're from Jersey? I'm from Jersey too! What exit?

  2. Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Informative

    Right now they are two different things. US vs Forrester was a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court and this recent ruling was the NJ State Supreme Court. If they come into conflict it will have to go to the US Supreme Court. Incidentally, the 9th Circuit is one of the most overturned appeals courts in recent years.

    I am guessing this issue will one day wind up before the US Supreme Court. We know that Congress won't address the issue, so it will probably be left to the lawyers in black robes.

  3. Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester by Ardeaem · · Score: 4, Informative

    Incidentally, the 9th Circuit is one of the most overturned appeals courts in recent years. God, this meme needs to die. The 9th circuit also has a very highest number of cases. When you look at the numbers as proportions, the 9th Circuit isn't out of line.
  4. Guilty but let go by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.