5 ms·
Glad to see that she's being forced to step down after such an egregious invasion of privacy. But that's just a school. The much more important case is whethe
by dripton 13y ago
Glad to see that she's being forced to step down after such an egregious invasion of privacy.
But that's just a school. The much more important case is whether anyone in the federal government gets punished when they do the same thing without a warrant. So far, it doesn't look like it.
- stfu 13y agoIronically in both cases it was not about "finding the criminal" but about finding out who leaked a story to the press. Seems like transparency is not really popular these days.
- jordanthoms 13y agoDidn't you hear? We have "the most transparent government in history"!
- rayiner 13y agoThe Dean of Harvard is stepping down not because there is anything illegal about her searching through the e-mails of faculty (your employer has every right to search your work e-mail), but because it was in bad taste in an academic institution which made the Dean ineffective as a figurehead. Similarly, there is nothing definitively illegal about the federal government asking Google to voluntarily hand over your e-mails. It is at best in bad taste.
- aioprisan 13y agoHarvard College, not all schools at Harvard. And simply handing over emails is illegal without a warrant. The issue here was with blanket access to all emails (read: all students) without probable cause.
- wnight 13y agoIt should be, but is not illegal for the government to ask for private data, or lean on companies to provide it, (see the NSA Warrantless Wiretapping affair, specifically Qwest - the only telco that refused the illegal orders.) You can be essentially compelled to break the law - and you gain no immunity for being forced. Damned if you don't, convicted if you do.
- tptacek 13y agoIn most situations it is probably not illegal to hand over your emails without a warrant; it depends entirely on the terms of your access to your email service.
- declan 13y agoThis is another area where your intuition might say A but in reality the law is !A. Under federal law an email provider may not "knowingly divulge" the contents of email "to any governmental entity" without a court order or emergency situation involving "serious physical injury." Violations are punishable by "imprisonment for not more than 1 year" and civil liability. It's true that there's an exception to the law. That says providers may share the contents of customers' communications only "with the lawful consent" of the user. A federal appeals court in 2003 narrowed that, saying consent exists only when the "party knew about and consented to the interception." And the FTC has said that it's unlawful for a company not "to adequately disclose" it's sharing information. Translation: if Comcast buried a we-will-disclose-all-your-email-to-the-FBI in the fine print of its terms of service, its executives risk felony charges (and mass defections). In the real world, Comcast doesn't do that -- and it is illegal to hand over your emails without a warrant.
- driverdan 13y agoWhat makes you think the government is required to get a warrant to read your email? Anything older than 180 days is considered fair game.
- declan 13y agoNot after the 6th Circuit's decision in Warshak, at least for major email providers. Non-email stored data such as Dropbox or Google Drive files, on the other hand...
- tss20147 13y agoEgregious invasion of privacy? The dean authorized a search of the subject lines of emails sent by a specific set of employees using an email system provided by their employer. A system which based upon law and I'm willing to guess the acceptable use policy faculty agree to, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy when using. This was done in order to determine if student information, which the university has an obligation to protect, was leaked along with other information regarding the disciplinary action. Doesn't sound like an invasion of privacy at all and certainly not egregious.