How Long Before the Paparazzi Can Read George Clooney's E-mails?

A pivotal case in California could soon answer this very question.

The case, Bunnell v. Motion Picture Association of America, involves a hacker who was paid $15,000 by the MPAA to break into a file-sharing company's server and obtain copies of company e-mails as they were being transmitted and send them to a MPAA executive. 

Is this wiretapping?  What does intercept mean?   Does it matter when the e-mails are taken, before or after the recipent gets them?  A lower court in California ruled that it did, and now that is being appealed.  The Judge ruled that the alleged hacker, Rob Anderson, had not intercepted the e-mails in violation of the 1968 Wiretap Act because they were technically in storage, if only for a few instants, instead of in transmission.

Anderson configured the "copy and forward" function of Valence Media's server so that he could receive copies of company e-mail in his Google mail account.  He didn't actually "steal" or "take" anything.  Or so the judge said.

"Anderson did not stop or seize any of the messages that were forwarded to him," the decision said.  "Anderson's actions did not halt the transmission of the messages to their intended recipients. As such, under well-settled case law, as well as a reading of the statute and the ordinary meaning of the word 'intercept,' Anderson's acquisitions of the e-mails did not violate the Wiretap Act."

If this decision stands, the wiretapping laws the we have will basically become null and void.  "It could really gut the wiretapping laws," said Orin S. Kerr, a George Washington University law professor and expert on surveillance law. "The government could go to your Internet service provider and say, 'Copy all of your e-mail, but make the copy a millisecond after the e-mail arrives,' and it would not be a wiretap."

But also, think about what that means in our celebrity obsessed culture.  (I says as I write for a pop culture blog).  Paparazzi moves from standing on the streets and snapping pictures to using internet service providers to grab e-mail while it is still "in storage."  With the rash of medical record exploitations, email opens up a whole new way to stalk celebrities.

I can see the cover of the National Enquirer now.  George Clooney e-mails Sarah Larson, are they getting back together?

source

Comments

[b]

Well, this is pretty gross. I'm not so worried about the government doing this just yet. (Most of my emails are detailed descriptions of my youngest's bowl movement for the pediatrician treating her.) But, dude, that's flat out stealing. Making copies of someone's email and then making money off of that? STEALING! These freaks suck ass.

[Amalah]

Straight-up bullshit. The MPAA wanted to catch people breaking copyright laws so they went and hired a HACKER to get the evidence they were looking for? That's even WORSE than the gov't tapping your phone because they think you *might possibly* be breaking a law.

Stupid ruling. Terrible precedent. Will now go encase my laptop in tin foil.

[Kari Weber]

I think I am missing something... is the MPAA getting emails off of their own companies server? If so, doesn't a company have the rights to look at any and all actions sent or received from their company's computers? If they are getting it from ANOTHER source... then that is just wrong. I don't think it should matter whether they are in storage or transmitting. In response to "B's" comment above... wouldn't it be funny if Branjalina were outed for... "email describes twins have undiagnosed rash on butt- could they be putting the other children in danger? Have the Pitt's tracked Denge Fever into the houshold?" Hee hee.