From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:00:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.190922.900@dcatlas.dot.gov>, joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
|> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
|> 
|> >Question:  did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
|> >When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
|> >I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.
|> 
|> No, he did *not* have the right (unless a prior contract specified otherwise)
|> to view Wang's email.  He should be prosecuted, found as guilty as he is,
|> and treated as harshly as possible.  That said, the evidence that Wang was
|> involved in crimes of his own *exists*.  It cannot be ignored.  Two wrongs
|> do not make a right.  Wang should also be tried, convicted, and probably
|> shot ("if you don't like the consequences of your actions...").
|> 
|> -JTT
|> 

Not so fast.  The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
specifically exempts providers of electronic communications services
from the prohibitions against seeing the messages:

        Section 2701.  Unlawful access to stored communications

             (a)  Offense.-- Except as provided in subsection (c) of this
        section whoever --

                 (1)  intentionally  accesses  without  authorization a
            facility through which an electronic communication service is
            provided; or

                 (2)   intentionally exceeds an authorization  to access
            that facility;

        and  thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a
        wire  or  electronic  communication while  it  is  in electronic
        storage  in  such  a  system shall be  punished  as  provided in
        subsection (b) of this section.

[...]

             (c)   Exceptions.-- Subsection (a) of this section does not
        apply to conduct authorized--

                 (1)  by  the  person  or  entity  providing  a  wire or
            electronic communications service;

In addition, the worker has the right to divulge what is inadvertently
discovered to law enforcement agencies if it pertains to a crime:

        Section 2702.  Disclosure of contents

             (a) Prohibitions.-- Except as provided in subsection (b)--

                 (1)   a  person  or  entity  providing   an electronic
            communication  service  to  the public  shall  not knowingly
            divulge   to  any  person  or  entity  the  contents   of a
            communication  while in electronic storage by  that service;

[...]

             (b)   Exceptions.--  A  person or  entity  may  divulge the
        contents of a communication --

[...]
                 (6) to a law enforcement agency, if such contents --

                      (A)  were  inadvertently obtained  by  the service
                 provider; and

                      (B) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime.

The only possible issue is whether the worker's discovery was
inadvertent.  Given that he/she was not specifically looking for
evidence of a crime, and was in the process of doing a normal account
deletion, it seems to me that it was inadvertent in the context of the
law.  I am not familiar with the all of the details of the case, so
there may be a subtlety involving how they came across the information,
but as far as I can tell, that worker was completely within the
allowances of the law on this one.

-- 
Joseph A. Watters, Jr.		jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
Xref: sparky comp.admin.policy:1007 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2742 misc.legal.computing:2105