NYTimes.com Article: Intercepting E-Mail

[Guest guest]

The article below from NYTimes.com

has been sent to you by jprior@....

FYI

jprior@...

/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

THE CLEARING - NOW PLAYING IN SELECT CITIES

THE CLEARING stars ROBERT REDFORD and HELEN MIRREN as Wayne

and Eileen - a husband and wife living the American

Dream. Together they've raised two children and struggled to

build a successful business from the ground up. When Wayne

is kidnapped by Arnold Mack (WILLEM DAFOE), and held for

ransom in a remote forest, the couple's world is turned

inside out.

Buy tickets now at:

http://movies.channel.aol.com/movie/main.adp?mid=17891

\----------------------------------------------------------/

Intercepting E-Mail

July 2, 2004

When you click on " send " to deliver that e-mail note to

your lover, mother or boss, you realize that you are not

communicating directly with that person. As you well know,

you have stored the e-mail on the computer of your Internet

service provider, which, as you also know, may read, copy

and use the note for its own purposes before sending it on.

What, you didn't know all this? Sounds ludicrous? We would

have thought so, too, but a federal appeals court recently

ruled that companies providing e-mail services could read

clients' e-mail notes and use them as they wish. Part of

its rationale was that none of this would shock you because

you have never expected much online privacy.

Count us among the shocked. The decision, on a 2-to-1 vote

by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the

First Circuit in Massachusetts, sets up a frightening

precedent, one that must be reversed by the courts, if not

the Congress. It's true that people are aware of some

limits on online privacy, particularly in the workplace.

But the notion that a company like America Online,

essentially a common carrier, has the right to read private

e-mail is ludicrous.

All major I.S.P.'s, including AOL, say they have no

interest in doing that and have privacy policies against

it. The case before the First Circuit involved a small

online bookseller, no longer in business, that also

provided e-mail service. To learn about the competition,

the company copied and reviewed all e-mail sent from

Amazon.com to its e-mail users. One of its executives was

indicted on an illegal-wiretapping charge.

Both the trial and appeals courts ruled that the federal

wiretap law, which makes it a crime to intercept any " wire,

oral or electronic communication, " did not apply because

there had been no actual interception. Technically

speaking, the judges held, the bookseller had simply copied

e-mail notes stored on its servers, and different laws

apply to the protection of stored communications.

These laws were drafted before e-mail emerged as a form of

mass communication, so there is some ambiguity in how to

apply them. But as the dissenting judge on the appellate

panel noted, his two colleagues interpreted the wiretap

statute far too narrowly. What's more, their analysis was

predicated on the bizarre notion that our e-mail notes are

not in transit once we send them, but in storage with an

intermediary. The same logic would suggest that the postal

service can read your letters while they are in " storage. "

Americans' right to privacy will be seriously eroded if

e-mail is not protected by wiretap laws. The implications

of this erosion extend beyond the commercial realm. The

government will also find it easier to read your e-mail if

it does not have to get a wiretap order to do so. Congress

ought to update the law to make it clear that e-mail is

entitled to the same protection as a phone call.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02FRI2.html?ex=1089776580 & ei=1 & en=0773\

0f8ec2d22c5c

---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine

reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!

Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy

now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1 & Extern\

alMediaCode=W24AF

HOW TO ADVERTISE

---------------------------------

For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters

or other creative advertising opportunities with The

New York Times on the Web, please contact

onlinesales@... or visit our online media

kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to

help@....

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Guest guest]

The article below from NYTimes.com

has been sent to you by jprior@....

FYI

jprior@...

/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

THE CLEARING - NOW PLAYING IN SELECT CITIES

THE CLEARING stars ROBERT REDFORD and HELEN MIRREN as Wayne

and Eileen - a husband and wife living the American

Dream. Together they've raised two children and struggled to

build a successful business from the ground up. When Wayne

is kidnapped by Arnold Mack (WILLEM DAFOE), and held for

ransom in a remote forest, the couple's world is turned

inside out.

Buy tickets now at:

http://movies.channel.aol.com/movie/main.adp?mid=17891

\----------------------------------------------------------/

Intercepting E-Mail

July 2, 2004

When you click on " send " to deliver that e-mail note to

your lover, mother or boss, you realize that you are not

communicating directly with that person. As you well know,

you have stored the e-mail on the computer of your Internet

service provider, which, as you also know, may read, copy

and use the note for its own purposes before sending it on.

What, you didn't know all this? Sounds ludicrous? We would

have thought so, too, but a federal appeals court recently

ruled that companies providing e-mail services could read

clients' e-mail notes and use them as they wish. Part of

its rationale was that none of this would shock you because

you have never expected much online privacy.

Count us among the shocked. The decision, on a 2-to-1 vote

by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the

First Circuit in Massachusetts, sets up a frightening

precedent, one that must be reversed by the courts, if not

the Congress. It's true that people are aware of some

limits on online privacy, particularly in the workplace.

But the notion that a company like America Online,

essentially a common carrier, has the right to read private

e-mail is ludicrous.

All major I.S.P.'s, including AOL, say they have no

interest in doing that and have privacy policies against

it. The case before the First Circuit involved a small

online bookseller, no longer in business, that also

provided e-mail service. To learn about the competition,

the company copied and reviewed all e-mail sent from

Amazon.com to its e-mail users. One of its executives was

indicted on an illegal-wiretapping charge.

Both the trial and appeals courts ruled that the federal

wiretap law, which makes it a crime to intercept any " wire,

oral or electronic communication, " did not apply because

there had been no actual interception. Technically

speaking, the judges held, the bookseller had simply copied

e-mail notes stored on its servers, and different laws

apply to the protection of stored communications.

These laws were drafted before e-mail emerged as a form of

mass communication, so there is some ambiguity in how to

apply them. But as the dissenting judge on the appellate

panel noted, his two colleagues interpreted the wiretap

statute far too narrowly. What's more, their analysis was

predicated on the bizarre notion that our e-mail notes are

not in transit once we send them, but in storage with an

intermediary. The same logic would suggest that the postal

service can read your letters while they are in " storage. "

Americans' right to privacy will be seriously eroded if

e-mail is not protected by wiretap laws. The implications

of this erosion extend beyond the commercial realm. The

government will also find it easier to read your e-mail if

it does not have to get a wiretap order to do so. Congress

ought to update the law to make it clear that e-mail is

entitled to the same protection as a phone call.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02FRI2.html?ex=1089776580 & ei=1 & en=0773\

0f8ec2d22c5c

---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine

reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!

Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy

now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1 & Extern\

alMediaCode=W24AF

HOW TO ADVERTISE

---------------------------------

For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters

or other creative advertising opportunities with The

New York Times on the Web, please contact

onlinesales@... or visit our online media

kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to

help@....

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Guest guest]

The article below from NYTimes.com

has been sent to you by jprior@....

FYI

jprior@...

/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

THE CLEARING - NOW PLAYING IN SELECT CITIES

THE CLEARING stars ROBERT REDFORD and HELEN MIRREN as Wayne

and Eileen - a husband and wife living the American

Dream. Together they've raised two children and struggled to

build a successful business from the ground up. When Wayne

is kidnapped by Arnold Mack (WILLEM DAFOE), and held for

ransom in a remote forest, the couple's world is turned

inside out.

Buy tickets now at:

http://movies.channel.aol.com/movie/main.adp?mid=17891

\----------------------------------------------------------/

Intercepting E-Mail

July 2, 2004

When you click on " send " to deliver that e-mail note to

your lover, mother or boss, you realize that you are not

communicating directly with that person. As you well know,

you have stored the e-mail on the computer of your Internet

service provider, which, as you also know, may read, copy

and use the note for its own purposes before sending it on.

What, you didn't know all this? Sounds ludicrous? We would

have thought so, too, but a federal appeals court recently

ruled that companies providing e-mail services could read

clients' e-mail notes and use them as they wish. Part of

its rationale was that none of this would shock you because

you have never expected much online privacy.

Count us among the shocked. The decision, on a 2-to-1 vote

by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the

First Circuit in Massachusetts, sets up a frightening

precedent, one that must be reversed by the courts, if not

the Congress. It's true that people are aware of some

limits on online privacy, particularly in the workplace.

But the notion that a company like America Online,

essentially a common carrier, has the right to read private

e-mail is ludicrous.

All major I.S.P.'s, including AOL, say they have no

interest in doing that and have privacy policies against

it. The case before the First Circuit involved a small

online bookseller, no longer in business, that also

provided e-mail service. To learn about the competition,

the company copied and reviewed all e-mail sent from

Amazon.com to its e-mail users. One of its executives was

indicted on an illegal-wiretapping charge.

Both the trial and appeals courts ruled that the federal

wiretap law, which makes it a crime to intercept any " wire,

oral or electronic communication, " did not apply because

there had been no actual interception. Technically

speaking, the judges held, the bookseller had simply copied

e-mail notes stored on its servers, and different laws

apply to the protection of stored communications.

These laws were drafted before e-mail emerged as a form of

mass communication, so there is some ambiguity in how to

apply them. But as the dissenting judge on the appellate

panel noted, his two colleagues interpreted the wiretap

statute far too narrowly. What's more, their analysis was

predicated on the bizarre notion that our e-mail notes are

not in transit once we send them, but in storage with an

intermediary. The same logic would suggest that the postal

service can read your letters while they are in " storage. "

Americans' right to privacy will be seriously eroded if

e-mail is not protected by wiretap laws. The implications

of this erosion extend beyond the commercial realm. The

government will also find it easier to read your e-mail if

it does not have to get a wiretap order to do so. Congress

ought to update the law to make it clear that e-mail is

entitled to the same protection as a phone call.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02FRI2.html?ex=1089776580 & ei=1 & en=0773\

0f8ec2d22c5c

---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine

reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!

Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy

now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1 & Extern\

alMediaCode=W24AF

HOW TO ADVERTISE

---------------------------------

For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters

or other creative advertising opportunities with The

New York Times on the Web, please contact

onlinesales@... or visit our online media

kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to

help@....

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Guest guest]

The article below from NYTimes.com

has been sent to you by jprior@....

FYI

jprior@...

/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

THE CLEARING - NOW PLAYING IN SELECT CITIES

THE CLEARING stars ROBERT REDFORD and HELEN MIRREN as Wayne

and Eileen - a husband and wife living the American

Dream. Together they've raised two children and struggled to

build a successful business from the ground up. When Wayne

is kidnapped by Arnold Mack (WILLEM DAFOE), and held for

ransom in a remote forest, the couple's world is turned

inside out.

Buy tickets now at:

http://movies.channel.aol.com/movie/main.adp?mid=17891

\----------------------------------------------------------/

Intercepting E-Mail

July 2, 2004

When you click on " send " to deliver that e-mail note to

your lover, mother or boss, you realize that you are not

communicating directly with that person. As you well know,

you have stored the e-mail on the computer of your Internet

service provider, which, as you also know, may read, copy

and use the note for its own purposes before sending it on.

What, you didn't know all this? Sounds ludicrous? We would

have thought so, too, but a federal appeals court recently

ruled that companies providing e-mail services could read

clients' e-mail notes and use them as they wish. Part of

its rationale was that none of this would shock you because

you have never expected much online privacy.

Count us among the shocked. The decision, on a 2-to-1 vote

by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the

First Circuit in Massachusetts, sets up a frightening

precedent, one that must be reversed by the courts, if not

the Congress. It's true that people are aware of some

limits on online privacy, particularly in the workplace.

But the notion that a company like America Online,

essentially a common carrier, has the right to read private

e-mail is ludicrous.

All major I.S.P.'s, including AOL, say they have no

interest in doing that and have privacy policies against

it. The case before the First Circuit involved a small

online bookseller, no longer in business, that also

provided e-mail service. To learn about the competition,

the company copied and reviewed all e-mail sent from

Amazon.com to its e-mail users. One of its executives was

indicted on an illegal-wiretapping charge.

Both the trial and appeals courts ruled that the federal

wiretap law, which makes it a crime to intercept any " wire,

oral or electronic communication, " did not apply because

there had been no actual interception. Technically

speaking, the judges held, the bookseller had simply copied

e-mail notes stored on its servers, and different laws

apply to the protection of stored communications.

These laws were drafted before e-mail emerged as a form of

mass communication, so there is some ambiguity in how to

apply them. But as the dissenting judge on the appellate

panel noted, his two colleagues interpreted the wiretap

statute far too narrowly. What's more, their analysis was

predicated on the bizarre notion that our e-mail notes are

not in transit once we send them, but in storage with an

intermediary. The same logic would suggest that the postal

service can read your letters while they are in " storage. "

Americans' right to privacy will be seriously eroded if

e-mail is not protected by wiretap laws. The implications

of this erosion extend beyond the commercial realm. The

government will also find it easier to read your e-mail if

it does not have to get a wiretap order to do so. Congress

ought to update the law to make it clear that e-mail is

entitled to the same protection as a phone call.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02FRI2.html?ex=1089776580 & ei=1 & en=0773\

0f8ec2d22c5c

---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine

reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!

Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy

now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1 & Extern\

alMediaCode=W24AF

HOW TO ADVERTISE

---------------------------------

For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters

or other creative advertising opportunities with The

New York Times on the Web, please contact

onlinesales@... or visit our online media

kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to

help@....

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company