Expectation of privacy

[agraham]

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:
>
> 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
>
>

The real problem is people spamming mailing lists with meaningless junk.