Monday, June 25, 2007
Your email is like a...
For a very long time we have associated sending email with sending a post card. It has just that much security. Anyone along the way could read it. Many who send email know this, but also believe their messages are protected communications and that the government and law enforcement agencies can't just read every message they've ever sent.
People are under the impression that email is private, like a telephone call or a first-class letter. These should be private and protected by the Fourth Amendment, protecting Americans from unreasonable search and seizure. Having someone from the government read your letters or listen to your calls should be an invasion of privacy and require special permission. But this has not been the case.
But who was worried about email? With a stroke of the delete key these are rendered to electronic dust, never to be seen again. Well, we know that isn't true. These are often held in archives on potentially many servers along the path the bits and bytes traveled.
The 1986 Stored Communications Act (SCA) which existed before most Americans knew what email was. This law was meant to be a protection of stored data, such as email, but there is an exclusion. It does not apply to an "electronic communication that is readily accessible to the general public." One question we face 20 years after this Act was passed is what does "readily accessible" really mean? The feds have been testing this.
In 2005 the feds were investigating Steven Warshak and they obtained a court order for Yahoo and Nuvox Communications, under the SCA, to turn over his emails. Yahoo and Nuvox were two of his Internet Service Providers (ISP). Warshak filed a suit claiming these are private and are protected by the Fourth Amendment. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has agreed.
This case has the potential of being one of the largest Fourth Amendment - Technology decisions we have seen. Government entities will now have to show substantive reason for accessing these records unless the ISP has notified the sender or proves that the email wasn't considered private. This decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals tells us that the perception of protection is now a reality.
Does this mean Steven Warshak is a hero to the cause of technology? Not necessarily. This investigation came about because of the allegedly fraudulent behavior of Warshak and his company, Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals. They sell herbal supplements, diet and male enhancement pills. Warshak was indicted on 107 counts of wire fraud, bank fraud and other crimes.
References:
Warshak v USA, Sixth Circuit
SCA
For a very long time we have associated sending email with sending a post card. It has just that much security. Anyone along the way could read it. Many who send email know this, but also believe their messages are protected communications and that the government and law enforcement agencies can't just read every message they've ever sent.
People are under the impression that email is private, like a telephone call or a first-class letter. These should be private and protected by the Fourth Amendment, protecting Americans from unreasonable search and seizure. Having someone from the government read your letters or listen to your calls should be an invasion of privacy and require special permission. But this has not been the case.
But who was worried about email? With a stroke of the delete key these are rendered to electronic dust, never to be seen again. Well, we know that isn't true. These are often held in archives on potentially many servers along the path the bits and bytes traveled.
The 1986 Stored Communications Act (SCA) which existed before most Americans knew what email was. This law was meant to be a protection of stored data, such as email, but there is an exclusion. It does not apply to an "electronic communication that is readily accessible to the general public." One question we face 20 years after this Act was passed is what does "readily accessible" really mean? The feds have been testing this.
In 2005 the feds were investigating Steven Warshak and they obtained a court order for Yahoo and Nuvox Communications, under the SCA, to turn over his emails. Yahoo and Nuvox were two of his Internet Service Providers (ISP). Warshak filed a suit claiming these are private and are protected by the Fourth Amendment. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has agreed.
This case has the potential of being one of the largest Fourth Amendment - Technology decisions we have seen. Government entities will now have to show substantive reason for accessing these records unless the ISP has notified the sender or proves that the email wasn't considered private. This decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals tells us that the perception of protection is now a reality.
Does this mean Steven Warshak is a hero to the cause of technology? Not necessarily. This investigation came about because of the allegedly fraudulent behavior of Warshak and his company, Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals. They sell herbal supplements, diet and male enhancement pills. Warshak was indicted on 107 counts of wire fraud, bank fraud and other crimes.
References:
Warshak v USA, Sixth Circuit
SCA
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Is Free Wi-Fi Free?
In Michigan a man is facing 5 years in jail and a $10,000 fine for sitting in his car and checking his email. The problem, he wasn't a customer of the café that was providing the free Wi-Fi. Typically many people would believe the café wouldn't complain about a potential customer and have him arrested for this. They didn't. The police noticed the same man doing the same thing, day after day and felt it was suspicious. They approached Sam Peterson II and asked him what it was that he was doing. He explained that he would park there, and use the Wi-Fi to check his email. He didn't know it was illegal and neither did the café owner or the police. Peterson wasn't cited with any violation at that time. The police did research it though and found a 1979 Michigan law that prohibited computer hacking. This was law was amended in 2000 to include unauthorized use of a wireless signal. Now a warrant was sworn out for his arrest.
Prosecutors believe Peterson is more likely going to face a $400 fine and 40 hours of community service. A steep price for email, especially if his email had spam in it.
Is this case unique? In 2005 a Florida man was arrested on a third degree felony charge for accessing a Wi-Fi signal from his car. In 2006 an Illinois man was arrested for the same thing. Also in 2006 a man in Washington was arrested for using the Wi-Fi of a coffee shop. And in Alaska this year it was another man using the signal from a public library as he sat in the parking lot after the library closed playing internet games.
There are risks to those who make W-Fi available but more risks to those who use it. Most often we associate this risk with computer security, not the arrest of the user. Personally, I'd rather see a lot of email senders go to jail than the receivers.
In Michigan a man is facing 5 years in jail and a $10,000 fine for sitting in his car and checking his email. The problem, he wasn't a customer of the café that was providing the free Wi-Fi. Typically many people would believe the café wouldn't complain about a potential customer and have him arrested for this. They didn't. The police noticed the same man doing the same thing, day after day and felt it was suspicious. They approached Sam Peterson II and asked him what it was that he was doing. He explained that he would park there, and use the Wi-Fi to check his email. He didn't know it was illegal and neither did the café owner or the police. Peterson wasn't cited with any violation at that time. The police did research it though and found a 1979 Michigan law that prohibited computer hacking. This was law was amended in 2000 to include unauthorized use of a wireless signal. Now a warrant was sworn out for his arrest.
Prosecutors believe Peterson is more likely going to face a $400 fine and 40 hours of community service. A steep price for email, especially if his email had spam in it.
Is this case unique? In 2005 a Florida man was arrested on a third degree felony charge for accessing a Wi-Fi signal from his car. In 2006 an Illinois man was arrested for the same thing. Also in 2006 a man in Washington was arrested for using the Wi-Fi of a coffee shop. And in Alaska this year it was another man using the signal from a public library as he sat in the parking lot after the library closed playing internet games.
There are risks to those who make W-Fi available but more risks to those who use it. Most often we associate this risk with computer security, not the arrest of the user. Personally, I'd rather see a lot of email senders go to jail than the receivers.
