Risk
6/11/2009
07:46 PM
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

U.S. Court Weighs E-mail Privacy, Again

At issue: whether e-mail messages deserve the same privacy protection as telephone calls.

In a replay of a court decision from two years ago, civil liberties groups are once again trying to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that e-mail messages deserve the same privacy protection as telephone calls.

On Wednesday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU of Ohio, and the Center for Democracy and Technology filed an amicus brief in Warshak v. USA in support of appellant Steven Warshak.

Warshak argues that a court order secretly directing his ISP to preserve his e-mail violates federal privacy laws and his expectation of privacy.

The government's interest in Warshak follows from its 2005 investigation of allegations of mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and other federal offenses arising from the operations of Steven Warshak's company Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, a maker of herbal pills for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

In May 2005, the government obtained an order from an Ohio judge directing Internet service provider NuVox Communications to turn over electronic messages belonging to Warshak and his associates. In September of that year, the government used a similar order to obtain Warshak's e-mail from Yahoo.

In November 2006, the EFF, the ACLU of Ohio, and the CDT filed a similar amicus brief in support of Warshak, arguing that e-mail deserves the same legal protection as telephone calls. In June 2007, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Warshak's favor. But that decision was vacated on procedural grounds. And now the case is back before the court.

In a statement, EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston says that the Justice Department conducted what amounts to a "back-door wiretap" when it intercepted six months of Warshak's e-mail without a warrant. "Thankfully, this abuse has given the appeals court yet another opportunity to clarify that the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of e-mail against secret government snooping, even when it's in the hands of an e-mail provider," he said.


InformationWeek Analytics has published an independent analysis on what executives really think about security. Download the report here (registration required).

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7441
Published: 2015-05-29
The modern style negotiation in Network Block Device (nbd-server) 2.9.22 through 3.3 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (root process termination) by (1) closing the connection during negotiation or (2) specifying a name for a non-existent export.

CVE-2014-9727
Published: 2015-05-29
AVM Fritz!Box allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in the var:lang parameter to cgi-bin/webcm.

CVE-2015-0200
Published: 2015-05-29
IBM WebSphere Commerce 6.x through 6.0.0.11 and 7.x before 7.0.0.8 IF2 allows local users to obtain sensitive database information via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2015-0751
Published: 2015-05-29
Cisco IP Phone 7861, when firmware from Cisco Unified Communications Manager 10.3(1) is used, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via crafted packets, aka Bug ID CSCus81800.

CVE-2015-0752
Published: 2015-05-29
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) X8.5.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL, aka Bug ID CSCut27635.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
After a serious cybersecurity incident, everyone will be looking to you for answers -- but you’ll never have complete information and you’ll never have enough time. So in those heated moments, when a business is on the brink of collapse, how will you and the rest of the board room executives respond?