Zinna v. Cook, No. 06-1733, 2010 WL 3604386 (D. Colo. September 7, 2010)
Plaintiff sued for violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) claiming that defendants intercepted his email messages and posted them to a website called ColoradoWackoExposed.com. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion.
It found that although similarities between messages and website content suggested that emails had been intercepted, there was no evidence showing the interception was “contemporaneous” with the messages’ transmission. (Several federal circuits require such contemporaneity. But see the Seventh Circuit’s recent opinion in U.S. v. Szymuszkiewicz for a different take.)
The court also held there was insufficient evidence to show that defendants knew the information posted on the website came about via any unlawful interception. The plaintiff’s assertions that defendants had worked with a non-party wiretapper failed to convince the court of this knowledge.
So the plaintiff really was a wacko.
The plaintiff was wacko if he believed that there is any legal protection of privacy in this country. The timing of the capture of someone’s personal email has absolutely NO logical relevance to the presence or extent of a privacy invasion. The fact that judges are even considering such minutia proves that new privacy law is badly needed.