LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for BLOGGING Archives


BLOGGING Archives

BLOGGING Archives


BLOGGING@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BLOGGING Home

BLOGGING Home

BLOGGING  November 2005

BLOGGING November 2005

Subject:

Re: Mystery of Gossipy Blog on the Judiciary Is Solved

From:

"Bovee, Matthew" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

UVM Blogging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:27:41 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (74 lines)

Actually, that quote is in the dissenting minority opinion, and the majority opinion was reversing the prior dismissal of charges against the ISP Owner/Operator, saying that he had in fact acted illegally by retrieving stored messages for purposes not related to the ISP service rendered nor their intended use (communication between the addresses). However, given that it is true one signs or otherwise indicates agreement w/an ISP contract, it is likely the dissention might be the majority rule in other cases. Plus, proving discovery via the ISP and its employees might not be straightforward. So, the heuristic of not emailing it if you would object to/be harmed by it becoming public knowledge is still valid.
MB

-----Original Message-----
From: UVM Blogging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard E. Parent
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 1:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mystery of Gossipy Blog on the Judiciary Is Solved

> As with email, which has an assumption of privacy, but is really
> public, webpostings should be considered fully public, even when you
> use a "pen name" to post them.

Steve (et al.),

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently rule that there is *no* presumption of privacy (and, thus, right to anonymity) in e-mail.

"When a customer signs up with an e-mail provider like Interloc, he routinely is asked to read and expressly sign off on a privacy agreement which defines his expectations of privacy visą-vis the provider. If the protections are inadequate, he may decline the e-mail service and seek an alternative service contract which will afford him the protections he requires. [....] If Interloc did intercept its customers' messages in breach of a privacy agreement, the remedy lies in contract, not in the Wiretap Act." (47-48)

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1383EB-01A.pdf

In other words, your presumption of privacy extends no farther than the contract you "sign" with your ISP, and if you don't insist on adequate privacy (and your ISP doesn't give it to you), you're pretty much up the creek.

Sad, sad, sad.

But back to the Court Blog -- I have no sympathy for this guy at all.
He outed
himself because he wanted "recognition" for all of his work on the blog. When the consequences come a-knocking, he's got no one but himself to blame. One would have thought that an Ivy-educated lawyer would have been taught more prudence and discretion.

--
Richard E. Parent, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English
Old Mill 435, University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05405
Phone (802) 656-3312
Fax (802) 656-3055
[log in to unmask]
http://www.uvm.edu/~reparent/


Quoting Steve Cavrak <[log in to unmask]>:

>
> On Nov 17, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Chris Moran wrote:
>
>> Um.. I find that highly wrong. While I rarely hide my identity when
>> I speak up,
>> anonimity is protected to at least some extent.
>>
>> From http://www.epic.org/free_speech/ :
>> "Appeals Court Upholds Anonymous Online Speech. In the first
>> appellate decision
>> to address the issue, a New Jersey appeals court has established stringent
>> procedural and evidentiary standards that must be met before the
>> identity of an
>> anonymous online poster can be disclosed through litigation.
>
>
> While there is often a presumption of anonimity, there is no
> guarantee of this ...
>
> "Litigation" refers to legal procedures, and in this case, the rights
> of "discovery."
>
> Discovery, however, doesn't always have to come through court
> procedures. That's what keeps newspapers, etc, in business. (Not to
> mention private detectives, or even private database companies ...)
>
> As with email, which has an assumption of privacy, but is really
> public, webpostings should be considered fully public, even when you
> use a "pen name" to post them.
>
> Steve

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2021
January 2021
September 2020
January 2020
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
December 2018
June 2018
November 2017
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
August 2015
September 2014
June 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
October 2013
June 2013
April 2013
February 2013
October 2012
October 2010
April 2010
March 2010
December 2009
June 2009
April 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
May 2007
April 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager