tes@whuts.UUCP (04/21/87)
In article <493@gouldsd.UUCP}, mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes: } In article <4510@utah-cs.UUCP>, cetron@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) writes: } }> a) The lab was expecting a critical letter from an outside source }> (just so happened to be mit :-) ) and the student whose account it was to be }> sent to was gone for three days, so i monitored syslog until it arrived and }> pulled it out of his directory. NOTE: this was lab business NOT personal mail }> and gov't contracting agencies wait for no man. } } What you are talking about here is a violation of Federal Law. Electronic } mail is protected under the same protection as the US Mail, despite the speed } difference ! It is legal for root to read a user's files, delete them, trash } an account, or even edit a user's files, but electronic mail is protected. While I am not a lawyer, I attempt to keep up on computer law, and even send current case law citations to legal types asking questions. In addition, I have been known to attend computer law seminars. I guess I missed the "Federal Law" or cases that established the above protection. May I recommend that we all not comment until Marcus provides us with some "meat", i.e. CFR citations, Federal Court case citations, etc. to back up his statements. With the "meat" on the table, then we will have much to discuss. -- ----- Terry Sterkel -====---- AT&T Bell Laboratories --------- {clyde|harvard|cbosgd|allegra|ulysses|ihnp4}!whuts!tes ----- [opinions are obviously only my own]
bill@green.UUCP (Bill Bogstad) (04/23/87)
In article <1798@whuts.UUCP> tes@whuts.UUCP (STERKEL) writes: >While I am not a lawyer, I attempt to keep up on computer law, >and even send current case law citations to legal types asking >questions. In addition, I have been known to attend computer >law seminars. > >I guess I missed the "Federal Law" or cases that established the >above protection. May I recommend that we all not comment until >Marcus provides us with some "meat", i.e. CFR citations, >Federal Court case citations, etc. to back up his statements. > >With the "meat" on the table, then we will have much to discuss. [How soon we forget...] Try looking up the "Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986". It has specific sections which appear to refer to electronic mail services. There was quite a bit of discussion about it at the time in various news groups. As I recall there was some question about whether or not it applied to only commercial systems, but it was definitely a gray area in the law. I have an on-line copy of one of the later revisions if you are interested. I don't think there were any significant changes after it. I didn't check though since I learned that it had passed and I didn't really want to know how bad the final version was. (If it isn't obvious, I was opposed to some of the proposals. Bill -- Bill Bogstad bogstad@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa (301)338-8019 seismo!mimsy!jhunix!green!bill -- Bill Bogstad bogstad@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa (301)338-8019 seismo!mimsy!jhunix!green!bill Moderator of mod.computers.ridge
glr@m-net.UUCP (Glen L. Roberts) (04/25/87)
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 amended the 1968
Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2500 et seq) as follows (more or less to look it up):
1) Made it illegal to listen to certain radio transmissions,
2) Made it illegal to tape data transmissions (without a warrant),
2) made it illegal to disclose electonic mail, except to:
a) the intented receipent,
b) any service involved in forwarded the message,
c) the government (without a warrant), or if older than 180 days an
administrative subpeona.
The U.S. Mail privacy is protected by the 4th Amendment, and 18 USC 1700
et seq.
The ECPA also made it illegal for electronic mail or remote computing
services to disclose customer records to the government, except with a
warrant, or an administrative subpoena (prior notice necessary with the
subpoena). Also excepted from this is FBI counter-intelligence requests.
Please use this as only a general outline, and get a copy for yourself
for all the details, exceptions, penalties, definitions, etc.
--
Glen L. Roberts, Box 8275-UN, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107
{!ihnp4!itivax!m-net!glr} <-- don't expect a reply, !Mail is brain damaged here
``No government door can be closed against the 1st Amendment and no
government action is immune from its force.'' -Bursey v. US (466 F.2d 1059)