Comments on: Email snooping can be intrusion upon seclusion http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/08/31/email-snooping-can-be-intrusion-upon-seclusion/ A blog about law and technology Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:44:42 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Joe http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/08/31/email-snooping-can-be-intrusion-upon-seclusion/comment-page-1/#comment-40401 Joe Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:48:47 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=968#comment-40401 The tech hosting company was just plain wrong here. What business do they have forwarding someone's e-mail to anyone else without their consent or knowledge? The tech hosting company was just plain wrong here. What business do they have forwarding someone’s e-mail to anyone else without their consent or knowledge?

]]> By: jonst http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/08/31/email-snooping-can-be-intrusion-upon-seclusion/comment-page-1/#comment-40398 jonst Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:58:00 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=968#comment-40398 where did the author of this opinion (or more likely, his or her clerk) get their law degree? Do you believe that CFAA analysis? Could they get more things wrong? where did the author of this opinion (or more likely, his or her clerk) get their law degree? Do you believe that CFAA analysis? Could they get more things wrong?

]]> By: Eric Goldman http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/08/31/email-snooping-can-be-intrusion-upon-seclusion/comment-page-1/#comment-40352 Eric Goldman Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:08:04 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=968#comment-40352 Could the city have claimed a 47 USC 230 defense? Could the city have claimed a 47 USC 230 defense?

]]> By: Laura Bergus http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/08/31/email-snooping-can-be-intrusion-upon-seclusion/comment-page-1/#comment-40349 Laura Bergus Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:00:04 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=968#comment-40349 Slightly off the cloud computing issue, but: Do you think as the case progresses that the court will deem the messages as "private"? Since Steinbach is an elected official, and the messages in question were on a municipally-issued account - surely this correspondence could have become public record? Is it the manner in which the emails were accessed and used that's the issue? At a municipality in Iowa where I was webmaster, I administered webmail accounts for elected officials and they were instructed that any and all correspondence using those accounts could and would see the light of day if someone asked. Do you think a policy like this -- if Steinbach were instructed that here emails were, de facto, public -- would make a difference to the court? Or, rather, if the defendant had argued access was allowed under open records laws instead of federal wiretap / stored communications law? Slightly off the cloud computing issue, but: Do you think as the case progresses that the court will deem the messages as “private”? Since Steinbach is an elected official, and the messages in question were on a municipally-issued account – surely this correspondence could have become public record? Is it the manner in which the emails were accessed and used that’s the issue?

At a municipality in Iowa where I was webmaster, I administered webmail accounts for elected officials and they were instructed that any and all correspondence using those accounts could and would see the light of day if someone asked. Do you think a policy like this — if Steinbach were instructed that here emails were, de facto, public — would make a difference to the court? Or, rather, if the defendant had argued access was allowed under open records laws instead of federal wiretap / stored communications law?

]]>