In another thread, respondents debated the expectation of privacy regarding email. I think this is a reasonable topic for an email mailing list, since there are many differing perceptions.
Of course, laws and customs vary across the world. In the United States, there is a rather complex hierarchy of limitations of scrutiny of electronic communication, particularly by the government. In general, there is:
1) No recgnized expectation of privacy with respect to most header information (to, from, addressing and routing information, etc).
2) No recognized expectation of privacy regarding aggregate information that would be logged by a provider (number of emails sent, websites visited, amount of data transmitted, etc).
3) There is variable expectation of privacy regarding the content of the email.
3a) There is a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding email sent from one person to one other person.
3b) With respect to mailinglist emails, the Supreme Court concluded in US v Maxwell:
"Expectations of privacy in e-mail transmissions depend in large part on the type of e-mail involved and the intended recipient. Messages sent to the public at large in the "chat room" or e-mail that is "forwarded" from correspondent to correspondent lose any semblance of privacy. Once these transmissions are sent out to more and more subscribers, the subsequent expectation of privacy incrementally diminishes. This loss of an expectation of privacy, however, only goes to these specific pieces of mail for which privacy interests were lessened and ultimately abandoned."
4) Finally, emails that are *stored after reading* on a server lose the expectation of privacy. The analogy the courts used was that of a paper letter. A sealed letter delivered to a recipient carries an expectation of privacy. Once the recipient has opened the letter, the expectation of privacy depends on what he or she does with it -- it is the responsibility of the recipient, not the sender. If the recipient puts the letter in a safe, it retains the expectation. If the recipient leaves it sitting on the table and walks away, it loses the expectation of privacy. In the eyes of the court, saving an email on a server constitutes putting it on the desk and walking away. Similarly, abandoned emails lose the expectation, just as abandoned letters do. Thus, email that is stored on a server eventually loses its expectation of privacy even if not read.
In addition, there are differences in *who* can read emails. For instance, while the government may be limited in some instances, a private company can read any communications made by any employee on a company machine, at least if there is notification somewhere.
The effect of warnings, banners, and statements of privacy are variable, depending on the relationship of the sender and recipient. Generally, the banners are effective in removing rather than providing an expectation of privacy. They seem to be meaningless in a practical manner with it comes to multiple recipient emails sent outside a closed organization.
In my profession as a forensic pathologist, I am frequently called to court. Occasionally I, and some of my colleagues, have been surprised to find that emails we sent to mailinglists of various sorts pop up as exhibits when people attempt to challenge our testimony. The admission of these has never been successfully challenged on the basis of expectation of privacy in any of the cases I'm aware of.
Any person who expects that their emails to a mailinglist are private is, at least in the US, doomed to disappointment. If you don't want your emails published generally, don't send them to a mailinglist.
billo
Am 02.05.2013 20:48, schrieb Bill Oliver:
In another thread, respondents debated the expectation of privacy regarding email. I think this is a reasonable topic for an email mailing list, since there are many differing perceptions.
Any person who expects that their emails to a mailinglist are private is, at least in the US, doomed to disappointment. If you don't want your emails published generally, don't send them to a mailinglist
you missed the fact that a mail NOT SENT to any mailing-list was replied and quoted to TWO mailing-lists, and this is unacceptable everywhere
On 05/02/2013 11:48 AM, Bill Oliver wrote:
3a) There is a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding email sent from one person to one other person.
I might add that although there's no legal prohibition about making private emails public, most people consider it bad manners to do so without the sender's permission. "What happens in private mail stays in private mail."
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:13:01PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 05/02/2013 11:48 AM, Bill Oliver wrote:
3a) There is a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding email sent from one person to one other person.
I might add that although there's no legal prohibition about making private emails public, most people consider it bad manners to do so without the sender's permission. "What happens in private mail stays in private mail."
More relevant: We have mailing list guidelines that directly address using private, off-list email (and keeping it so):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#Certain_behavioral_gu...
Having a bunch of IANALs debate legality, while certainly a great academic and forensic exercise, is off topic for the list. Let's get back to Fedora! :-)
Sure, but as those of us who spend a lot of time in court come to recognize, what constitutes "bad manners" and what is "illegal" (and particularly what is excludable from court), are two very, very different things.
And, of course, not all situations are equivalent. I have been in the situation, for instance, where the same person has sent me emails saying one thing, told a colleague another thing, told a federal investigator a third thing, and told the press a fourth thing. Any assertion that there is some sort of protection that precludes this kind of deception from being outed because the deceptions are in private email would be incorrect. No communication can properly be viewed in a vacuum when it comes to making dogmatic statements about reportability.
billo
On Thu, 2 May 2013, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 05/02/2013 11:48 AM, Bill Oliver wrote:
3a) There is a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding email sent from one person to one other person.
I might add that although there's no legal prohibition about making private emails public, most people consider it bad manners to do so without the sender's permission. "What happens in private mail stays in private mail." -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 20:29 +0000, Bill Oliver wrote:
Sure, but as those of us who spend a lot of time in court come to recognize, what constitutes "bad manners" and what is "illegal" (and particularly what is excludable from court), are two very, very different things.
I think that's understood. "Illegal" is not a well-defined concept when talking about an international forum such as this one.
Lists are useful largely because most people respect the Guidelines most of the time. The Guidelines are not laws or even strictly-enforced rules for the most part.
BTW, one of them asks members not to top-post in replies ...
poc
On Thu, 2 May 2013, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
BTW, one of them asks members not to top-post in replies ...
poc
Yeah, sorry. This is the only mailinglist I belong to where folk still obsess about it. It's been interesting, over the years, to watch the top-post fetish move from cutting edge to atavistic (and that's not a criticism -- atavism isn't all bad). I do try to remember, but sometimes fail.
Most other lists to which I belong have given in to modern mailing conventions, which largely have fallen to the dictates of Outlook (and even alpine) defaults.
billo
<snip>
BTW, one of them asks members not to top-post in replies ...
Most other lists to which I belong have given in to modern mailing conventions, which largely have fallen to the dictates of Outlook (and even alpine) defaults.
</snip>
For what it's worth, once I understood the bottom post situation, I found it preferable because it forces one to carefully think out what one may be responding to, snip most of the previous guff, then to respond to the remaining topics. <snips> are helpful for me. Roger
On Fri, 3 May 2013, Bill Oliver wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2013, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
BTW, one of them asks members not to top-post in replies ...
Yeah, sorry. This is the only mailinglist I belong to where folk still obsess about it. It's been interesting, over the years, to watch the top-post fetish move from cutting edge to atavistic (and that's not a criticism -- atavism isn't all bad). I do try to remember, but sometimes fail.
To be precise, "bottom-posting" should be "interleaved-posting". Responses go just below stimuli.
Is it ok to obsess about trimming boilerplate?
Most other lists to which I belong have given in to modern mailing conventions, which largely have fallen to the dictates of Outlook (and even alpine) defaults.
I'm using alpine and have not changed its defaults.
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 18:48 +0000, Bill Oliver wrote:
In another thread, respondents debated the expectation of privacy regarding email. I think this is a reasonable topic for an email mailing list, since there are many differing perceptions.
I do think it's a worthy topic, I'm just not sure that the Fedora list is the place for it since it has really nothing specifically to do with Fedora, or indeed with Linux, or operating systems, or software or computers, but with policies on the Internet. Perhaps someone can suggest a more focussed forum for this.
poc
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:04:14PM -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 18:48 +0000, Bill Oliver wrote:
In another thread, respondents debated the expectation of privacy regarding email. I think this is a reasonable topic for an email mailing list, since there are many differing perceptions.
I do think it's a worthy topic, I'm just not sure that the Fedora list is the place for it since it has really nothing specifically to do with Fedora, or indeed with Linux, or operating systems, or software or computers, but with policies on the Internet. Perhaps someone can suggest a more focussed forum for this.
There is a list for Fedora legal issues. I'm not sure that's the right forum either, since this is not specific to Fedora. That list is used primarily for dealing with software licensing and other issues that specifically impact the Fedora Project. A Usenet group that discusses general legal issues might be more appropriate, like this one (UI is through Google Groups gateway):
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/misc.legal.computing
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 15:04 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
do think it's a worthy topic, I'm just not sure that the Fedora list is the place for it since it has really nothing specifically to do with Fedora, or indeed with Linux, or operating systems, or software or computers, but with policies on the Internet.
Other than to, perhaps, bring it to the attention of those that don't read the guidelines that you really shouldn't do such a thing, and it won't be particularly accepted by the list participants.
Though, having said that, it has been my policy that if someone from a mailing list sent me a cowardly private nastygram, I would reply back to the list. They rarely ever did that to me more than once, after that.
These days, I write to the list using an email address that has a auto-deleting in-box. I'll *only* get to see messages that went through the list.
Seriously, don't write things that you wouldn't want others to see. Whether that be nasty stuff, or just making a fool of yourself. All you're doing is producing evidence.
On 05/03/2013 11:10 AM, Tim wrote:
Though, having said that, it has been my policy that if someone from a mailing list sent me a cowardly private nastygram, I would reply back to the list. They rarely ever did that to me more than once, after that.
Well, people who are replying to PM on lists, to me qualify as "not showing any respect to privacy" and them not being able to destinguish between "confidential" and "public" correspondence.
That said, to me, replying to private off-list mails in public is simply inacceptable.
Allegedly, on or about 03 May 2013, Ralf Corsepius sent:
Well, people who are replying to PM on lists, to me qualify as "not showing any respect to privacy" and them not being able to destinguish between "confidential" and "public" correspondence.
That said, to me, replying to private off-list mails in public is simply inacceptable.
It's the same as following someone home then picking a fight with them, because you no-longer feel obliged to behave with decency. They only way to stop someone doing that sort of thing is to make it known what they're doing.
When someone behaves towards you as a jackass, such as sending foul messages to you in private, *they* brought all the repercussions upon themselves.
On 05/03/2013 06:49 PM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 03 May 2013, Ralf Corsepius sent:
Well, people who are replying to PM on lists, to me qualify as "not showing any respect to privacy" and them not being able to destinguish between "confidential" and "public" correspondence.
That said, to me, replying to private off-list mails in public is simply inacceptable.
It's the same as following someone home then picking a fight with them, because you no-longer feel obliged to behave with decency. They only way to stop someone doing that sort of thing is to make it known what they're doing.
Sometimes no, sometimes yes.
In most cases it's disclosing information or providing background information/opinions which are not appropriate/relevant for the public audience.
Tim:
It's the same as following someone home then picking a fight with them, because you no-longer feel obliged to behave with decency. They only way to stop someone doing that sort of thing is to make it known what they're doing.
Ralf Corsepius:
Sometimes no, sometimes yes.
In most cases it's disclosing information or providing background information/opinions which are not appropriate/relevant for the public audience.
Certainly, I couldn't justify publicising someone's confidential information, but I can justify making it known that someone likes to send offensive messages when they think they can get away with it. For what it's worth, such offensive mail would contravene laws in some quarters, to begin with (offensive, threats, etc.).
On 05/02/2013 07:48 PM, Bill Oliver wrote:
In another thread, respondents debated the expectation of privacy regarding email. I think this is a reasonable topic for an email mailing list, since there are many differing perceptions.
Of course, laws and customs vary across the world. In the United States, there is a rather complex hierarchy of limitations of scrutiny of electronic communication, particularly by the government. In general, there is:
- No recgnized expectation of privacy with respect to most header
information (to, from, addressing and routing information, etc).
- No recognized expectation of privacy regarding aggregate information
that would be logged by a provider (number of emails sent, websites visited, amount of data transmitted, etc).
- There is variable expectation of privacy regarding the content of the
email.
3a) There is a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding email sent from one person to one other person.
3b) With respect to mailinglist emails, the Supreme Court concluded in US v Maxwell:
"Expectations of privacy in e-mail transmissions depend in large part on the type of e-mail involved and the intended recipient. Messages sent to the public at large in the "chat room" or e-mail that is "forwarded" from correspondent to correspondent lose any semblance of privacy. Once these transmissions are sent out to more and more subscribers, the subsequent expectation of privacy incrementally diminishes. This loss of an expectation of privacy, however, only goes to these specific pieces of mail for which privacy interests were lessened and ultimately abandoned."
- Finally, emails that are *stored after reading* on a server lose the
expectation of privacy. The analogy the courts used was that of a paper letter. A sealed letter delivered to a recipient carries an expectation of privacy. Once the recipient has opened the letter, the expectation of privacy depends on what he or she does with it -- it is the responsibility of the recipient, not the sender. If the recipient puts the letter in a safe, it retains the expectation. If the recipient leaves it sitting on the table and walks away, it loses the expectation of privacy. In the eyes of the court, saving an email on a server constitutes putting it on the desk and walking away. Similarly, abandoned emails lose the expectation, just as abandoned letters do. Thus, email that is stored on a server eventually loses its expectation of privacy even if not read.
In addition, there are differences in *who* can read emails. For instance, while the government may be limited in some instances, a private company can read any communications made by any employee on a company machine, at least if there is notification somewhere.
The effect of warnings, banners, and statements of privacy are variable, depending on the relationship of the sender and recipient. Generally, the banners are effective in removing rather than providing an expectation of privacy. They seem to be meaningless in a practical manner with it comes to multiple recipient emails sent outside a closed organization.
In my profession as a forensic pathologist, I am frequently called to court. Occasionally I, and some of my colleagues, have been surprised to find that emails we sent to mailinglists of various sorts pop up as exhibits when people attempt to challenge our testimony. The admission of these has never been successfully challenged on the basis of expectation of privacy in any of the cases I'm aware of.
Any person who expects that their emails to a mailinglist are private is, at least in the US, doomed to disappointment. If you don't want your emails published generally, don't send them to a mailinglist.
billo
The real problem is people spamming mailing lists with meaningless junk.
On Thu, 2 May 2013 18:48:36 +0000 (UTC) Bill Oliver vendor@billoblog.com wrote:
In another thread, respondents debated the expectation of privacy regarding email. I think this is a reasonable topic for an email mailing list, since there are many differing perceptions.
...snip...
I think it's a completely reasonable topic for a privacy or meta list.
I don't think it's really a good one for the fedora users support list. ;)
kevin
-
agraham -
Joe Zeff -
Kevin Fenzi -
Michael Hennebry -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Paul W. Frields -
Ralf Corsepius -
Reindl Harald -
Roger -
Tim -
William Oliver