🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep9.121142.4840@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>There is an interesting article in the September 1992 issue of "Corporate
>Computing".  Entitled "E-mail Snooping", it's an overview of the current
>controversy in email privacy.  It included discussion of the Epson case,
>comments from Eastman Kodak and several other firms, and an editorial by
>William F Buckley.  It's an interesting piece of reading material.
>
>I called Corporate Computing, and they refused my request to post the
>article or excerpts thereof.  (I realize that they have a healthy business 
>in selling reprints, but this seems a bit extreme.)
>
>I noticed something else interesting.  The article includes an interview
>with a director of the Electronic Mail Association.  After digging through
>several name servers (and nic.ddn.mil), I discovered that the EMA doesn't
>even have a registered domain!  Ya just gotta love it.......
>
>--Wes
>-- 
>MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
>morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
>morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
>  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu

The Wednesday, Sept. 9, 1992 issue of the San Francisco Examiner has an
interesting article of how the "Email's trail of evidence in software case"
has brought civil suits against Gordon Eubanks, president of Symantec Corp., 
and Eugene Wang, a former executive of Borland International.  At this point in 
time, everything is "alleged" to have happened.  In a nutshell the DA office
has what they consider evidence in which both parties communicated using
MCI Mail. The contexts of the message have been determined to be marketing
plans and other confidential information from Borland that have aided
Symantec in the battle for software market share.

Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed.  According
to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages.  This
started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties. 

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.

-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain