http://www.hendersondispatch.com/art...ion/opin01.txt
Intercepted e-mail decision chilling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court ruling that absolved a businessman from wiretapping charges sets a troubling precedent for modern - and private - communications.
Branford C. Councilman, former vice president of Interloc, an Internet company, was charged with wiretapping violations for ordering employees to develop a software program that allowed his company to read the private e-mails of Interloc's subscribers. Of interest to Councilman and his company were incoming e-mails from Amazon.com to Interloc subscribers who were dealers of rare books. The government alleged that Interloc tried to exploit the information it gleaned to "develop a list of books, learn about competitors and attain a commercial advantage."
Councilman's defense claimed that he didn't violate the Wiretap Act because his employees spied upon messages in "electronic storage." The Wiretap Act protects individuals from having others listen to their conversations, but offers very little protection, for instance, to recorded telephone conversations or taped messages.
Those provisions, unfortunately, are a miserable set of standards for modern communications.
"It puts all of our electronic communications in jeopardy - voice mail, e-mail, you name it," said Jerry Berman, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "I think it violates the letter and spirit of the statute."
It violates common sense, as well.
If our e-mails are fair game - open to be read for almost any reason by those who we've contracted to pass them from sender to recipient - then why isn't the U.S. Postal Service allowed to tear open every envelope that passes through the post office, just to see what's inside?
Because that's an invasion of both the sender and the receiver's privacy, that's why. In fact, in most cases, opening another person's mail is a crime.
So why should an Internet service provider, or anyone else other than a law enforcement agency that has obtained a warrant, be allowed to peruse the future contents of your inbox as each message passes through their control?
There's no viable reason why they should be.
We as Americans are entitled to many freedoms, including speech and association, not to mention an understood right to much privacy. Tuesday's ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals puts all of those freedoms in a precarious position.
