

Reading someone's Gmail doesn't violate federal statute, court finds - CodeMage
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/reading-someones-gmail-doesnt-violate-federal-statute-court-finds/

======
sageikosa
For perspective, they found it doesn't violate the SCA, but it may still
violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Anyway, their reading of the law lends itself to a requirement to maintain (at
least) two copies of a message (one the primary, and others the backups). If
there is only one "copy" then it cannot be a backup.

~~~
randomchars
So if I sync my emails to my phone than I have two copies and according to
their logic the online one is a backup, right?

~~~
sageikosa
How do I know? I'm a techie. :-)

From a utilitarian perspective, most emails I don't need to keep around once
I'm done reading them, so _any_ copy is a backup (just in case I need it
again, but not because I know I'll need it again). If I know I'll need it
again, then the online copy is the instrument of record.

From a multiple copy standpoint, if I don't clear my browser cache, the online
form is a backup, (one could "argue").

------
SeanDav
IANAL, but it seems that you could extend this finding to argue that music and
video files could be copied freely as long as they are in the cloud.

------
hnwh
If you do it to a judge or congressman, i'm sure that would change ASAP

~~~
felipemnoa
The cynical part of me says that they would just exclude themselves.

~~~
ihsw
To the tune of 'national security' or something equally ominous.

------
reneky
When letting Google or Yahoo store the email in the cloud one assumes that
_they_ keep a backup - indeed that there are several copies of the messages
stored - so this seems weird.

------
Thrymr
This mostly seems to indicate that the Stored Communications Act is out of
date. Unfortunately it is not likely to improve if the current Congress goes
mucking around with it.

------
humdumb
So, _hypothetically_, what if you don't use a third party email provider? That
is, all your mail is delievred directly to you and is stored on your local
machines/devices.

Does that give you more privacy protection than keeping messages stored with
some third party in the cloud? Or does it give you less protection?

------
jobu
Can anyone tell me what the legal repercussions would be for a person breaking
into a locked file cabinet and making a copy of personal letter belonging to
someone else?

Seems to me they're muddying the waters here with a lack of technical
comprehension about electronic data transfer and storage.

~~~
gizmo686
It seems more like the law was written to be as narrow as possible in
achieving its goal, as I believe laws should be. The problem is that the law's
goal was very different from how it was being applied in this case, and the
courts decided that instead of bending the law, they would follow it.

------
dsr_
It might be legal, but it isn't right.

------
mihai_ionic
Isn't it a backup of the data in the person's brain, and thereby considered
"electronic storage"?

~~~
randomchars
Unless your brain has a USB socket, no.

------
zoom
But still makes you feel dirty inside.

