From: simong@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory)
Subject: EMAIL PRIVACY SUMMARY
Summary: EMAIL PRIVACY SUMMARY
Keywords: EMAIL PRIVACY SUMMARY
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 06:02:39 GMT

Due to the vast number of responses I received to my offer of a
summary, I have decided to post the article, rather then mail it out 
individually.  The summary is as follows :




         ELECTRONIC MAIL ETHICS - Questionnaire Summary on EMAIL PRIVACY.
         ----------------------------------------------------------------

                       By: Simon. Gregory. (April 1992)
                       --------------------------------
      

Author Profile:
---------------

Name : Simon. Gregory.
Occupation: Student
Course : Science/Engineering  (3rd year)
Email: simong@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au

Institution: University of Melbourne
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.


Disclaimer:
-----------

This article does not, in any way, attempt to express my own or Melbourne 
University's opinions on this issue.  It is simply an impartial summary 
of some feelings expressed within the computing community.

Abstract:
---------

Email privacy is an issue which is currently the subject of much debate.
Should electronic mail be treated with the same respect as traditional
'snail mail', or should it be viewed in a completely different light?
Just what are the rights of the postmaster, or the owner of the system
on which electronic mail is being sent? - Is it really necessary for
them to have the ability to read the text of any message they choose?

There are no definite answers to these questions, and there probably never 
will be, however one thing is for certain : as our Society becomes
increasingly more reliant on computers, the issue which will not
disappear, or reduce in significance, but rather become an important
and integral aspect of our future lives.

Introduction:
-------------

The following letter was placed on the world-wide news network, in the
groups : comp.admin.policy, comp.risks and comp.society :

	I am currently engaged in an assignment based on the pros and 
        cons of the monitoring of email systems, and the opinions of 
        various different groups of people regarding this sensitive issue.

	I would appreciate any forthcoming replies, giving information or
	opinions on the topic.  Please include your occupation with your
        reply.

	As a general guide, I include the following questions:

       	     1) Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
	to look at the text of an article?

       	     2) What should the post master do if potentially damaging
	or illegal information is revealed.  eg. If the spreading of a 
        virus is revealed through a boast on email,  or two students 
	are discussing copying a computing assignment.  Should one's 
        personal privacy be sacrificed in such a case?

       	     3) Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
	widely known and accepted? 

             4) Would it be more acceptable if people were made aware
	of when and on what systems reading of mail by an outside party 
	could occur?

	Your cooperation would greatly be appreciated,
       		                                     Thankyou.
               		                                   Simon. Gregory.


Within a few hours, I had been (happily) inundated with responses, 
apparently demonstrating a keen interest, and possibly a little concern, 
over the issue of Email Privacy. 

The eventual response to my letter (after being posted for 3 working days) 
totaled over 8000 lines of text, spread between well over 50 respondents.  The following is a summary of the general ideas expressed, and trends 
illustrated within the replies.


Who Responded :
---------------

Respondents were from all over the World, with (predictively) the 
majority coming from the U.S.A.  There were also many replies from 
Australia and the U.K..  There were a multitude of other countries 
involved, two of the more noteable (or unexpected) being Kuwait and 
Saudi Arabia.

There was also a wide diversity of occupations.  Systems Administrators,
Postmasters and Students were by far the most common, however employees
of companies using email were also represented, in addition to several
employers and owners of systems.  A wide overview of opinions was thus
obtained. 

Thankyou :
----------

I would like to express my gratitude to all of the respondents to my
request for assistance, without whom this would not have been possible.


TEXT :
------

Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
----------------------------------------------------------
to look at the text of an article [email letter] ?
--------------------------------------------------

There was a general consensus that both the Postmaster and the System
Administrator currently have the ABILITY to examine the contents of any
Electronic Mail that comes through their system. (although some
Postmasters claimed to have installed certain protection routines
to prevent them from doing so.  They no doubt have the ability to
override this, however). A heated debate erupted, however, over
whether this power should continue to exist, and for what reasons.

Respondents can (approximately) be divided into three main groups :
                    
 		- Students at Universities.

		- Postmasters, System Administrators, and owners or
		  managers of computer systems.

		- Other users. (employees etc.)


Perhaps predictively, each group seemed to have the same characteristic
opinion expressed by the vast majority of respondents within that
group.

Many students expressed their opposition to the monitoring of email
IN ANY FORM, and not only opposed the RIGHT of a postmaster to look
at mail, but also challenged whether the ABILITY should continue to
exist.

Some compared the email to traditional 'pen and paper' type mail, with
one Computer Science graduate stating :

	"[email] should be given at least the same treatment that First 
	Class mail is given in the US: The address of the sender and 
	receiver can be noted (and any info on the outside of the 
	envelope), but the envelope cannot be opened."

This opinion was echoed by others :

	" If we are going to establish a tradition where people use 
	email like they use regular mail, they must have the EXPECTATION
	of privacy. Granted, people know that regular mail can be
	intercepted, steamed open and read, but they also know that this 
	is illegal (unless a warrant has been issued). Unless we 
	establish the same legal protection for email as regular mail, 
	we relegate it to a situation where unknown administrators, 
	with unknown rules, and unknown accountability can take whatever
	action they feel needed for "technical purposes."  This is a 
	shaky way to establish a new form of communication."

Another student, having been a system manager in the past, pointed
out that :

	"you have a system operator providing a service to his users. 
	He may well own the machine, so why should there be areas of
	the machine that he may not probe etc. If information is being
	passed which is detrimental to his system security (for example),
	then surely he should be able to read this??"

However, he concludes (with his own opinion) :

	"Email is quickly become a important (and potentially the most 
	important) form of communication around the world. I think it
	is imperetive that the information and views expressed and 
	shared between two users should be respected and that meer 
	citizens (ie. those not enpowered by the state) should not be
	legally allowed to intercept and read these messages."

One Student clarified the question :

	"I do not think that anyone should have the right to arbitrarily 
	monitor e-mail.  If the systems policy CLEARLY states that
	e-mail will be monitored then the user of the account has given
	up this right."


While students appeared to be overwhelmingly opposed to email monitoring, 
general users and employees seemed to take a more moderate approach,
with a wide range of opinions being expressed.

A Ph.D working at the University of Mississippi was of the opinion that:

	"The ability to look at email on the system should be to allow 
	the SysAd to solve user problems AT THE INVITATION OF THE USER."

And :

	"[eventually] Postmasters will not be able to look at the "inside 
	of the envelope" no matter how hard they try. They should get 
	used to only being able to see headers, because regardless of the 
	ethics involved, technically it will be [made to be] impossible."

This was supported by an Acedemic Systems Consultant :

	
	"I think this whole issue will disappear quite soon, 
	pending the widespread acceptance of public-key cryptography 
	standards and the wide availability of software that can take 
	advantage of such.  With such software, the body of a message 
	would always be encrypted with the recipient's public key, and 
	privacy would be ensured.  Sometimes technology can pre-empt 
	policy!"
	
One respondent points out :

	"in reality, they [postmasters] do need the ability [to read
	mail], since oftimes the only way to figure out what is going 
	wrong with a piece of mail is to look in the file that contains 
	it to examine the headers.  In a situation like that, it is 
	very difficult to avoid seeing at least SOME of the text of 
	the message."

Some came out in support of owner/operators of systems having the
right to examine mail, due to them paying for the service.  In one
letter, I was urged to consider the following :

	"- who is paying for the email facility?
         - what is the potential damage that can be done to/by the 
	   email user?"

This person continued :

	"if the postmaster is the person responsible for the email 
	facility at the institution that pays for the facility, 
	then you can't expect privacy."

And concluded :

	"Now suppose you're an individual who subscribes to email and 
	pays for it. In this case, you'd like to be protected from 
	people flooding your mailbox with nonsense."

Many also differentiated between computer systems in different settings,
generally leaning towards monitoring of academic mail, due to this
being an environment in which system 'vandalism' is most likely to 
occur.  Email, they believed, could often reveal such actions before
any damage was done.
 

System Administrators, on the other hand, generally came out in favour 
of monitoring email, although to various different extents.

One states:

	"[postmasters should have the ability to read email] to find out
	 who the mail should be forwarded to. Just like the postoffice 
	 can open undeliverable mail to find out where to send it to."

A slightly stronger viewpoint :

	"[I] really don't think "right" enters into it since the 
	system administrators are the one's that, in effect, own the
	machine.  It is a pragmatic issue, not one that should be 
	looked at with any more importance than that, UNLESS the owners 
	and/or administrators of the system have guaranteed the privacy 
	of such communications.  In the absence of any such assurance 
	or guarantee, I believe the participants of a conversation via 
	someone else's machine should not *expect* any such privacy."

There were many different views of the postmasters actual role, with
many Postmasters also being System Administrators, and therefore having
significant concern over potential damage to the system.

Some were of the opinion that :

	"the postmaster's sole role is to insure the smooth delivery 
	of mail." 

And that Postmasters should :

	"1. Hear and see no evil [do not look]
	 2. Speak no evil [if you have to look or see accidentally, 
	never divulge what you see]"

As another put it :

	"I believe that if you treat the medium with the same respect
	afforded to a private conversation or phone conversation you 
	will find the answers to your ethical questions have already 
	been resolved.  A systems administrator is in essence a postal 
	worker with an undetectable letter opener."

Others felt that it was their prime responsibility to prevent potential
damage to the system.

As one replied :

	"as an administrator at a government computing facility, I 
	have to prevent the use of my machines for illegal purposes. 
	This, I consider, gives me the right to read any mail that 
	I see fit."


Not everyone fully opposed or supported email privacy.  One person
in particular came up with a potential solution to the problem, 
which was that :

	"certain sites sign on as "secure" routing facilities, 
	guaranteeing that messages routed through their systems will 
	not be inspected.  Once a database of "secure" sites is 
	established, then the software (such as the pathalias database) 
	could be modified to accept a "secure" flag to route only via 
	those sites at the expense of connectivity or time.  Many sites 
	with limited resources (such as ours) would be reluctant to agree 
	to such statement, and they (we) could be excluded from the 
	"secure" listing, but included in a (probably larger) listing 
	that could be used for non-secure routing."



What should the post master do if potentially damaging or illegal 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
information is revealed.  eg. If the spreading of a virus is
------------------------------------------------------------
revealed through a boast on email,  or two students are discussing
------------------------------------------------------------------
copying a computing assignment.  Should one's personal privacy be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
sacrificed in such a case?
--------------------------


In general the copying of a computer assignment was not considered to
be sufficiently important to warrant a sacrifice of privacy :


	"i would favour full rights to the postamster to examine and 
	take action on user mail, as far as it relates to the safety 
	and well being of the system. anything outside of that (for 
	eg., copying assignments) is something i think, that falls 
	outisde [outside] the jurisdiction of the postmaster."


Potentially damaging or illegal information, however, was viewed in
a completely different light.  Many felt that, in some cases, one's 
personal privacy should be sacrificed for the common good : 

	"if an offence is uncovered, it should be dealt with, 
	regardless of how the information was acquired. But if the 
	information was acquired unethically, *another* offence 
	(acquiring information unethically) has been committed, and 
	this offender should be dealt with as well."


One respondent compared the "sending of hacking information or viruses 
by email" to "passing national secrets via telephone." and argued that
since, in this case a phone tap would be authorised, similar measures 
should be permissible with email, assuming that there is sufficient
evidence of such misbehaviour.


Another compared it to the "real" Post Office :

	"if I cannot deliver a package, I open it to see whom it is
	intended to go to.  If I happen to discover some rather 
	raunchy pictures, that's no business of mine. (IMO)  However, 
	if I discover explosives, I'm at LEAST going to contact 
	my supervisor for further instructions!  If it's obviously 
	rigged for detonation, call the police.  SOMEONE has committed 
	a serious crime, and I have knowledge of it.  As a good 
	citizen, I believe that I should report it."


Others, however, were opposed to the sacrifice of privacy, under
any circumstances :

	"the postmaster shouldn't see this anyway.  This goes back 
	to the post office & the phone company.  Where does it stop? I
	can call someone and tell them we're going to spread a virus, 
	so why shouldn't I be able to send email. It should be treated 
	exactly as any other form [of communication]." 

	"NO. What this means is a potential 'Big Brother is Watching 
	You'. The dangers to the freedom of people are in my opinion 
	far greater than the benefits from being able to read 
	peoples mail."

Perhaps an intermediate approach :

	"given that this is similar to any other sort of eavesdropping, 
	the right thing to do, for me, is to sit down with the person, 
	in an environment free of eavesdroppers, tell them what I know, 
	what kind of a position it puts me in, and what I want them
	to do about it - which is get it out of my sight and never let 
	me see it again on the systems I'm responsible for."


Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
----------------------------------------------------------
widely known and accepted? 
--------------------------

Overwhelmingly, the response was 'yes' :

	"YOU BET YOUR A** THEY SHOULD!  And make them SIGN IT TOO!  So 
	that later on, they cannot claim ignorance after the fact."

	"Yes and the tools to make it possible to follow the code in a 
	practical way."


Others pointed out that :

	"Maybe this would be a good idea - its a lawyers paradise 
	however."


There were a few, though, who believed a written code to be unnecessary :

	"I'd rather not put it down in writing: I want to reserve the 
	right to do anything to anyone at any time, but to have the 
	users' trust that I won't abuse this. A written document is 
	not necessary if your sysadmin is trustworthy, and is useless 
	if he isn't."


	"I think the relation between the sysadmin(s) and the users 
	should be based on trust. No list of rules can compensate for 
	that."



Some felt that there probably should be a policy, but doubted that
it could be agreed upon, while others thought that agreement was
not necessary :

	"As far as acceptance goes, if the policy is unacceptable 
	to the user, the user shouldn't be on that system."



Would it be more acceptable if people were made aware of when 
-------------------------------------------------------------
and on what systems reading of mail by an outside party could
-------------------------------------------------------------
occur?
------


There was a general feeling that if users ARE to have their mail
monitored, it is important to make them aware of this :


	"People should be told if their email is being monitored since 
	there is a reasonable expectation that it is NOT being monitored.  
	Then the user can decide if encryption should be used, or if a 
	phone call would be more private than email." 


	"There is *never* any justification for disturbing privacy 
	without letting the person know that it's possible.  You have to 
	give them the option of refusing to use the service."


A few felt that no such notice is necessary, however :

	"Anybody *EVER* assuming that email is secure is just plain
	stupid."


It was thought by some, that reading Email could not be made more
acceptable, even if a warning were to be in place :


	"THIS DOESN'T MAKE MONITORING ANY LESS OFFENSIVE!"

	
	"Of course but not preferable to privacy."


	"Not particularly; it's never acceptable"


Conclusion :
------------

It appeared, overall, that the system users were most often opposed to
the monitoring of Email, although there were some who were supportive,
under certain circumstances.

System Administrators and Postmasters, on the other hand, almost always
maintained that they had the need to monitor mail for a variety of 
different reasons,  although opinions on the extent to which such
monitoring should occur varied quite markedly.  Generally, owners
or managers of systems also supported this point of view, since as 
effective owners, they felt it was their right to do as they pleased,
and that they required some form of control over the traffic that passed 
through their often "limited resources".