🚀 go-pugleaf

Article 1739 of pa.general:
Path: usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.ysu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: STAN607@delphi.com
>Newsgroups: pa.general
Subject: Are there e-mail spies lurking along the e-mail route?
Date: 5 Apr 1995 03:52:11 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <3lt45b$7e2@news1.delphi.com>
References: <3lfbmr$7rm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1e.delphi.com

Quoting fparris from a message in pa.general
   > Reply-To: fparris@aol.com (FParris)
   > There was a recent court case about this (right now I can't recall
   >where but I'm looking thru my non electronic archives for the source and
   > particulars), and I recall that E-mail is NOT private. So, watch out,
   > especially if your employer is snoopy (and a lot are).

I also recall reading something along these lines.  It seems as if the
applicable statutes and regulations have been interpreted by the courts in a
couple cases whereby an EMPLOYE using the EMPLOYER'S computer system has no
reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her E-mail messages.  This would
be analagous to cases upholding the government's (or anybody else for that
matter) ability to intercept cordless telephone conversations.

The key question (and I am not certain if this has been litigated) is when
a CONSUMER is paying for a service like E-mail, does he or she have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the eyes of the law?

I see an interesting comparison here.  The courts have held that cellular
telephone customers DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy as they are
paying a provider for that service.  As a result, Pennsylvania's stringent
laws regarding the interception of telephone conversations apply to CELLULAR
telephone conversations, but not to CORDLESS conversations.  In other words,
(I assume) the consumer is not paying the telephone provider for the
convenience of using a cordless phone in his home.  It is his choice to do
so and he doesn't have that expectation of privacy or the same level of
protection as would a cellular customer.

I would think that it would be reasonable to think that the same argument
could and should apply to E-mail messages when one subscribes to such a
service.  Whether it applies in practice is another matter.