peterm%halcyon.uucp@seattleu.edu (11/17/90)
Re: Mr. McCoy's 11/16 post, good point about services like Prodigy not being common carriers. But perhaps the common carrier doctrine should be extended to such services. Even in the absence of doing so, it is possible for state PUCs and legislatures to produce a similar result in the area of intrastate provision of "information services." McCoy's point re: the ECPA in the context of his post, is also appropriate. I'd assume there is such a "fit."
peterm%halcyon.uucp@seattleu.edu (11/19/90)
Replying to Bill Bogstad's 11/17 post-- The ECPA was passed in 1986. Not only is much of its language pretty broad, which seems not atypical in such critters, but there have been very few cases under the statute. Yet, although the Epson case may currently be the most well-known of e-mail privacy cases, there are others. One of these was brought recently in WA state--WA Fed. of State Employees v. Dept. of Labor & Industries--and, like the Epson case, involves state law. It might be noted that, for such cases, state laws and state constitutions can often be more viable than the Fed. stuff.