Just got an e-mail forward from Andy, which I think he expected to set me off. I’m pretty sure I gave him a far different response than he expected.

Online Privacy “Eviscerated” by First Circuit Decision

The First Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a grave blow to the privacy of Internet communications with its decision today in the case of U.S. v. Councilman. The court held that it was not a violation of criminal wiretap laws for the provider of an email service to monitor the content of users’ incoming messages without their consent. The defendant in the case is a seller of rare and used books who offered email service to customers. The defendant had configured the mail processing software so that all incoming email sent from Amazon.com, the defendant’s competitor, was copied and sent to the defendant’s mailbox as well as to the intended recipient’s. As the court itself admitted, “it may well be that the protections of the Wiretap Act have been eviscerated as technology advances.”

My response to him was thus:

It’ll probably end up at a higher court, but I think the ruling was correct.

Just as a landlord has the right to enter your apartment or house, so, I think, should an e-mail provider retain the right (unless otherwise stated in a privacy policy) to read your e-mail messages. Is this a wise business decision? Hell no! But caveat emptor! It is, I believe, up to the consumer to scope out products they purchase or buy. For these same reasons I have no problem with g-mail. After all, if I don’t like the service, I can switch to another, that does not violate my privacy.

This makes it far different, I think, from a wiretap run by the government, where you do not have the option switching to another provider with a privacy policy.

—

On further reflection, it’s stupid on other grounds, as it would then, I believe, make the e-mail provider legally responsible for the content of messages.

But as usual, feel free to explain to me how I’m wrong.