Court Overturns Ruling Saying Reading Someone's Email Isn't A Wiretap

from the semantics... dept

Last year, there was a big uproar over the fact that a court found that a bookseller who offered his customers free email accounts did not violate wiretapping laws by reading their emails in order to see what Amazon was offering as deals. The ruling hinged on the wording of wiretap laws. The judges in the case admitted they weren't comfortable with the decision, but the problem was in the way the law was worded. The law only applies to "intercepted" communications -- and since the messages were (temporarily) on a server, reading through them technically was not "intercepting" communications, since they already had them. It appears that a new ruling now reverses that ruling and says that it is wiretapping, and the original case can go on. While the end result may seem like a good thing, protecting the rights of individuals to keep their email private from their email providers, the decision is still questionable. The real problem here is the wiretap law that is not designed to handle this situation at all. The article above notes that the law hopefully will still be changed -- which would solve this issue. However, in the meantime, it does sound like the judges may have decided something not based on what the law actually says.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Bill Pierskalla, 12 Aug 2005 @ 6:04am

    Point to Point

    If I mail a letter can the post office/postal employee read it? They are the middleman not the intended recipient. If I send an email it is intended for a specific person(s). Why is it not 'intercepting' a communication when a third party reads an email not addressed to them?
    BIll

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      karen, 27 Apr 2008 @ 7:29pm

      Re: Point to Point

      i agree-- it's against the law to read someones mail --it should be against the law to get into someoenes password and read their emails

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Igor Beylin, 12 Aug 2005 @ 12:44pm

    does this apply to google?

    does it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2005 @ 8:59pm

      Re: does this apply to google?

      I suspect this would be covered under the "we are recording this conversation" law (whatever that law is, maybe someone else knows the details on it). As long as they are upfront and tell you that they are "reading" the emails, then everything is ok.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bob, 12 Aug 2005 @ 3:23pm

    Panel

    Thankfully this was overturned, it is good to see an appeals court being sensible in its decisions.

    The panel's ruling last year was reckless in it's reasoning, in that "the messages were in storage rather than transit", therefore were exempt from the Wiretap Act. They completely ignored the intent of the law, which is to protect against unlawful wiretapping, instead focusing on wording technicalities in the law.

    Essentially that panel gave a green light to interception via procmail. If that be the case, then according to that panel's reasoning, you'd be o.k. recording a conversation on a telephone then storing it to a sound file, which we all know to be quite ridiculous.

    It leaves you wondering just how these panel judges get appointed in the first place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

Introducing the new Techdirt Insider Chat, now hosted on Discord. If you are an Insider with a membership that includes the chat feature and have not yet been invited to join us on Discord, please reach out here.

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.