Tim wrote:
Spare me and the list legalities. One it is slightly offtopic then again this is fd so I retract.Spare you what? If this is somehow off topic, please elaborate.
That entire argument and any thread arising from what is legal and what is not is likelier
to be answered, dissected, studied on a legal forum.
Laws are not about what could or should. They're about what's written. In this case, he sent an email to someone's former workplace. The worker was not there, the employer obviously read the email. So the questions to ask should be 1) HD didn't give consent, did/does the employer have something written to their employees which states the monitoring of email.Right, so under federal law, single party consent is sufficient. If HD didn't consent, and the former employee currently doesn't consent (i.e. consent under the AUP or other agreements has expired), then it could be illegal. That, or if the person reading the stored communications is not authorized by the company, then they would be personally liable.
If they do, case closed there is the one party federal consent.Secondly, did HD specify in his email any legalities of unauthorized reading. No.
Thirdly, you need to realize what you've stated and your misinterpretation of the law.
ECPA protects against INTERCEPTION. No interception occurred here, the mail was delivered to a recipient.
The network is the company's and all of its communications into or out are property of the company.Your conjecture that it's legal because the employer somehow owns the communication or the networks it travels over is completely bogus. The recipient is this email user, not the company.
http://www.redearthsoftware.com/email-monitoring-article.htm Email auditing and email interceptionA second distinction to make is the difference between email auditing (sometimes called email monitoring), where email is checked after the actual transmission, and email interception (sometimes called email filtering), where email is intercepted and checked during transmission.
Yup just looked this up. This was thrown out because Nancy consented under JH's email privacy policy. I don't see how this conflicts with my argument. tim
Rinse and repeat this post and my comments.. -- ==================================================== J. Oquendo http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743echo infiltrated.net|sed 's/^/sil@/g'
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." -- Plato
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/