Tim wrote:
This definitely could apply in the case of the ECPA, but could get dicey, since "ordinary course of business" is ill-defined and I suspect would require some serious legal wrangling to argue. Does this business regularly read everyone's email? In any case, whether they were legally permitted to monitoring that email box or not, you really should work on your debate skills. Attacking one point by changing to another doesn't take the discussion anywhere. The offensive tone your initial emails took on was really unwarranted. There's no need to make every thread a flame war. tim
AGAIN... VERBATIM NOT MY *SUGGESTION/NOTION/INFERRENCE* / * PLAIN ENGISH VERSION * /http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/107/Hearings/04032001hearing154/Lamb234.htm
V. Electronic Communications Privacy Act
The Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C.
2510-2522; 2701; was enacted to address potential privacy issues related
to the growing use of computers and other new forms of electronic
communications. It added provisions to the federal criminal code that
extended the prohibition against the unauthorized interception of
communications to specific types of electronic communications, including
e-mail, pagers, cellular telephones, voice mail, remote computing services,
private communication carriers, and computer transmissions. The Act also
identified situations and types of transmissions that would not be
protected,
most notably an employer's monitoring of employee electronic mail on the employer's system. / * END * / Do you see or not see the sentence "not be protected most notably an employer's monitoring... EMPLOYER'S SYSTEM"? Do you not see the plain English wording "unauthorized interception of". Now take good note of this from someone who has been to court... Everything is as broad as broad can be. Its purposefully done this way if you ask me and the arguments come out AFTER the fact hence new cases being cited and quoted. So literally the law states "unlawful intercept" and "would not be protected... employer monitoring" so take these two things literally assuming it were you in a court of law, you being the employer. Defense: "Client violated the ECPA act foo"Plaintiff: "There was NEVER AN INTERCEPTION. The email was DELIVERED to his EMPLOYER'S SERVER"
Point blank. Unless you cite another case where some company was found guilty of "snooping" to argue this, point is moot. And I am not just talking or inferring anything. I've posted ENOUGH information to give you a clue about FACTS not inferences. -- ==================================================== J. Oquendo http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743 echo 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/