This ruling is just plain wrong. Here's text directly from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Straight from the definitions:
(1) "wire communication" means any aural transfer made in...
"Aural" transfer. As in sound. Not email. Reading further down, we see:
(12) "electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include--
(A) any wire or oral communication;
But the important part is later, in Sec. 2511 (2):
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person -
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
Then, assuming you view email as similar to postcards -- i.e. readily accessible to the general public -- the ruling is perfectly in line with the law as written.
As some other posts have pointed out, the problem is with the legislation, not (for a change) with the judiciary.
More like TiVo. Appliances are where (embedded) linux really shines. Look at the Linksys WPC11/WAP11, CyberGuard, and some appliances that do things on a scale not even attempted in the Windoze world, such as InterIM from Deviant Technologies, and you'll see prime examples of why Linux and other open source technologies are kicking the shiny metal ass of proprietary products.
Walmart can sell Lindows PC's, and sure, they're interesting, but let's hope that's not what people think of then they think "Linux products". The thing is, despite the candy interface, when you do run into a problem the learning curve is too long.
I've used a Linux desktop exclusively for over a year now, and I'm happy with it, but when I tried to get my wife (a former IT guru) to adopt it it was a total flop. Admittedly, Debian is not your best intro to desktop Linux;-) but there are so many variables involved in making a PC a Linux "product" (OS, office productivity suite, printing, sound, network browsing, etc) that it's probably the worst test imaginable.
Appliances, competing in well-defined niches, are a natural for Linux and they tend to beat their closed-source competitors. THAT'S what I call a "Linux product".
Lotus Notes has been doing the online authoring/reviewing/publishing thing since at least version 3 (1993?). Lotus web-enabled the Notes product 'round about 1995.
Technically, it didn't ship as a fully functional web publishing application, but as a template that required about 5 minutes of programming to use. Still, it seems that it would be publicly available prior art...
Some of us corporate-IT types even sent emails to Etoys explaining why we had blocked access to their domain from our corporate networks. (I know, I know, the end doesn't justify the means...)
However, I still don't understand why Etoys would pull this stunt right before Christmas and then drop it right after. Surely they anticipated that this kind of bullying would irritate the wired masses (the very types who do a lot of shopping online)? Did they count on nobody noticing? Did they think that enough 'average' people would shop online this year to counteract the effect that it would have on us? Or did they just not think?
Sorry, I don't buy the explanation that they *wanted* the publicity that this fiasco generated. I think it's more likely that some legal types at Etoys didn't think the whole thing through before acting.
Slashdot Mirror
This ruling is just plain wrong. Here's text directly from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Straight from the definitions:
(1) "wire communication" means any aural transfer made in...
"Aural" transfer. As in sound. Not email. Reading further down, we see:
(12) "electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include--
(A) any wire or oral communication;
But the important part is later, in Sec. 2511 (2):
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person -
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
Then, assuming you view email as similar to postcards -- i.e. readily accessible to the general public -- the ruling is perfectly in line with the law as written.
As some other posts have pointed out, the problem is with the legislation, not (for a change) with the judiciary.
-- can't afford a sig --
More like TiVo. Appliances are where (embedded) linux really shines. Look at the Linksys WPC11/WAP11, CyberGuard, and some appliances that do things on a scale not even attempted in the Windoze world, such as InterIM from Deviant Technologies, and you'll see prime examples of why Linux and other open source technologies are kicking the shiny metal ass of proprietary products.
;-) but there are so many variables involved in making a PC a Linux "product" (OS, office productivity suite, printing, sound, network browsing, etc) that it's probably the worst test imaginable.
Walmart can sell Lindows PC's, and sure, they're interesting, but let's hope that's not what people think of then they think "Linux products". The thing is, despite the candy interface, when you do run into a problem the learning curve is too long.
I've used a Linux desktop exclusively for over a year now, and I'm happy with it, but when I tried to get my wife (a former IT guru) to adopt it it was a total flop. Admittedly, Debian is not your best intro to desktop Linux
Appliances, competing in well-defined niches, are a natural for Linux and they tend to beat their closed-source competitors. THAT'S what I call a "Linux product".
-hp3
...and the template allowed workflow / staging / approvals by multiple people, as mentioned in the article. Thanks _Swank for the reminder.
Lotus Notes has been doing the online authoring/reviewing/publishing thing since at least version 3 (1993?). Lotus web-enabled the Notes product 'round about 1995. Technically, it didn't ship as a fully functional web publishing application, but as a template that required about 5 minutes of programming to use. Still, it seems that it would be publicly available prior art...
Some of us corporate-IT types even sent emails to Etoys explaining why we had blocked access to their domain from our corporate networks. (I know, I know, the end doesn't justify the means...)
However, I still don't understand why Etoys would pull this stunt right before Christmas and then drop it right after. Surely they anticipated that this kind of bullying would irritate the wired masses (the very types who do a lot of shopping online)? Did they count on nobody noticing? Did they think that enough 'average' people would shop online this year to counteract the effect that it would have on us? Or did they just not think?
Sorry, I don't buy the explanation that they *wanted* the publicity that this fiasco generated. I think it's more likely that some legal types at Etoys didn't think the whole thing through before acting.