Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Appeals court upholds privacy of employee email (BUT ***caveats )
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:52:54 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma () u washington edu> Date: October 17, 2006 3:16:26 PM EDT To: dave () farber netSubject: Re: [IP] Appeals court upholds privacy of employee email (BUT ***caveats )
Greetings Dave, If IP finds this useful It may be worth noting that this area of law if far from clear, and this particular ruling only impacts the US Armed forces. This case is a government-employee-email case, where the "boss" IS the government - NOT a case where a private-sector employee's email was searched. Don't get me wrong, this court case is a big deal, and we'll likely hear more about it - but it is a public-sector employer case, and it goes _directly opposite_ most other public sector cases to boot. GWU law professor (and former Supreme Court clerk) Orin Kerr wrote about the important differences between public and private sector employers here in a piece critical of a 9th circuit ruling about 2 months ago:http://www.orinkerr.com/2006/08/09/ninth-circuit-mostly-eliminates- private-sector-workplace-privacy-rights-in-computers/
Unfortunately, as Professor Kerr's article title suggests, private sector employees generally have little to no 4th Amendment protection in their emails. It probably also bears reminding that the 4th Amendment only protects against government invasions of privacy, and doesn't protect against similar invasions by bosses, co-workers, or anyone else... -Ethan On 10/17/06, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
Begin forwarded message: From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu> Date: October 17, 2006 1:45:36 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: Appeals court upholds privacy of employee email For IP, if you wish. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has held that in a criminal case, a Marine had a reasonable subjective and objective expectation of privacy in personal emails sent on her government computer. This was despite the presence of a banner warning that the machine could be monitored.The court's reasoning turned on the facts in this case. Modest personaluse of email was permitted, and the system administrator testified that he normally didn't read users' emails for "privacy" reasons. The search that uncovered the incriminating messages was not routine or work-related;rather, it was part of a criminal investigation into (other) misconduct.The court held that that last point was crucial -- the wording of the banner implied that the monitoring was for routine operational and security purposes, rather than being for targeted law enforcement activity. The full opinion is at http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2006Term/05-5002.pdf --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Appeals court upholds privacy of employee email (BUT ***caveats ) David Farber (Oct 18)