Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Privacy United States News Your Rights Online

Maine Court Hears Case On E-Mail Privacy 153

Posted by timothy from the where's-the-maybe-here dept.
Rev Wally writes "A case before the Maine Supreme Court could change rules regarding an ISP revealing the owner of an e-mail address. It seems that some one (known in court documents only as John Doe) sent an e-mail of an unflattering cartoon of the plaintiff, Ronald Fitch, and his wife. Doe had registered for an e-mail address using Fitch's name. Doe's lawyer is arguing that the e-mail is protected as free speech, and the the ISP cannot be forced to divulge the names of subscribers except in a criminal case. Fitch is arguing that he may be a victem of identity theft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Maine Court Hears Case On E-Mail Privacy More

Maine Court Hears Case On E-Mail Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • IANAL but wouldn't this be considered as satire?
    • IANAL, but I would consider it satire if the guy (perp) had NOT signed up for the e-mail account under the identity of guy2 (victim). At that point, it's bordering on fraud and possibly, libel. Even the judge was curious as to why the guy was so determined to keep his name secret.

      My personal opinion is that situations like these can be avoided by simple common courtesy and remembering that your ARE NOT ANONYMOUS when sending a freakin' e-mail.

      Just my $.02

      blue

      • Good point, but I've constantly signed up for email addresses under other peoples names. Granted, I didn't do it with the intentions to pretend to be a specific Magic Johnson or Bill Clinton, but those were just names that popped into my head when I needed to create that temporary hotmail/yahoo/your_provider_here account to recieve some stupid email with a password... And boatloads of spam. Now, if he signed up under his name, using his ACCOUNT, then yes, I'd have to say that would be illegal, mainly due
    • They aren't arguing about the legality of the content, but rather, the legality of signing up for a service under someone else's name. I imagine the plaintiff is trying to get John Doe in trouble with the law because of the satire but through the "identity theft". You can make as much satire about me as you'd like, but the moment you steal something of mine to do it, I can turn the powers-that-be against you.

      Or at least that seems to be their case. Whether or not it'll fly or not, I don't know. The qu
      • Of course, this goes under the (potentially false) assumption that Identity Theft is a law in and of itself. The previous sibling seems to be more knowledgeable than myself on this.

    • IANAL but wouldn't this be considered as satire?

      I would expect that it would be better classified as impersonation, which isn't protected speech, IIRC.

    • I am a lawyer - and while parody or satire may be a defense to copyright infringement - this does not seem to be a copyright case. It also doesn't really seem to be an "Identity theft" case - at least not a criminal one. There is, in my opinion, no identity theft here. The defendant did not defraud anyone by his masquerade. The general rule is - you can use any name you like as long as you do not use it to commit fraud. Since, most likely, the defendant simply used the plaintiff's name to obtain a free

  • billg (Score:5, Funny)

    by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:04PM (#11338356)
    Wow, if this happens watch out for Bill Gates. He'll win so many lawsuits that he'll be rich!
    • Wow, if this happens watch out for Bill Gates. He'll win so many lawsuits that he'll be rich!

      But Bill Gates is already.....

      Oh, I get it. That's funny.
  • s/victem/victim/

  • [...] may be a victem of identity theft.

    Only on slashdot...

  • where did he send the email from? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    " Ronald Fitch sued Doe last year, claiming that an e-mail with an ironic message and an unflattering cartoon of Fitch and his wife - which Doe sent out under Fitch's name - amounted to identity theft."

    so did Mr Doe make an email account ronald.fitch@gmail.com and use that? Or did he actually break into Fitch's email account to send the email?
    • My understanding is that he actually set up a Roadrunner account, and used Fitch's name as the user name. And because its roadrunner, it somehow falls under the federal cable act, which actually prevents time warner from revealing Doe's idenity.
      • prevents time warner from revealing Doe's idenity.

        You forgot "Without a warrant, subpoena or otherwise obeying due process of law."

        The whole damn thing is because Fitch wants to know the guy's name, but just like the RIAA, instead of actually filing a John Doe lawsuit or filing criminal identity theft charges and having a judge issue a demand for the persons' name, he wants to just throw his own weight around because he seems to think he's more special (perhaps in the short-bus sense) than everyone else.

  • related issues (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:06PM (#11338383)
    Suppose I change the "from" address in my email client's settings to the address of another person, and then use my forged email header to post to an email list or web-community to which the other person is a member. Would that count as identity theft, spoofing or something else?

    • Re:related issues (Score:3, Informative)

      by Yolegoman ( 762615 )
      What if I don't send a "From" header at all, only a "Reply-To" header (with someone else's email address?) ? I mean, I'm not saying the message is _from_ the other person, only that replies need to be _sent_ to them. With no "From" header, it's the same as posting AC.

      It's Email. No privacy. No assurance that what you are reading was actually sent by who the message says it was sent from.
      • Well, being anal and all, what guarantee do you have real mail is sent by who the letter claims to have sent it? And - for e-mail at least, there's always GPG.
    • A kid at my college was suspended from school a few years ago, for this, among other things (the main issue was copyright infringement). He sent a joke e-mail out to all campus by impersonating someone who actually had access to the all campus mailing list. The administration here deemed it identity theft, although no one filed criminal charges or anything.

  • No contest case of slander (Score:4, Interesting)

    by teiresias ( 101481 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:06PM (#11338384)
    If John Doe had sent the picture as a hard copy through the postal service or worse posted this throughout Ronald Fitch's neighborhood this would be a no contest case of slander.

    That he used an e-mail address that had Ronald Fitch's name in it? With the dozen gmail invites I have I could make a dozen Ronald Fitch addresses. This is not identity theft. If I used those addresses to solicit his credit card information from the credit card companies than yes that's theft.

    It's just some guy being a jerk.

    • Whether it's slander is not the issue. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by raehl ( 609729 ) <raehl311.yahoo@com> on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:24PM (#11338605) Homepage
      YANAL.

      The issue is whether the plaintiff can compel the ISP to reveal the name of the person who may have committed the slander.

      Using your analogy, let's say that I really don't like my neighbor, so I make an unflattering flyer, go to the printer and have them make a bunch of copies of it, and then distribute them to the neighborhood.

      My neighbor figures out that the printer made the copies for me. Can the neighbor compel the printer to reveal who they made the copies for?

      Now, let's say that shortly after I distribute the flyers, my neighbor is killed under questionable circumstances. Can the police, with a court order, compel the printer to reveal who had the flyers made as part of a criminal investigation?

      Absolutely.

      The question before the court is whether, in a civil suit, the plaintiff has the right to compel a 3rd party to reveal identifying information about a civil defendent. The plaintiff is also attempting to argue that they should be able to get the information because the defendant committed a criminal act, but criminal enforcement is the pervue of the prosecutor/criminal court, not a civil suit/court.

      As for whether the picture is a "no-contest case of slander" (whatever that's supposed to mean), it certainly is NOT a clear-cut case of slander. An unflattering picture is merely unflattering. In order for it to constitute slander, the picture has to depict something which is not true, AND you must prove the author of the picture should have KNOWN is not true, AND a reasonable person, based on the picture, would have to believe the picture is true (i.e. the picture isn't satire).

      • Re:Whether it's slander is not the issue. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If slander is the case, then, Fitch should proceed on that point, to get the identity, as you pointed out.

        But by him arguing it as a case of "identity theft" (because that has a criminal, not just civil, component to it) he's not trying to play that card, and he doesn't have an argument.

        By arguing identity theft, he's essentially stating that he has an inherent "right" to any and all forms of on-line identity that he thinks about for himself, and that the John Doe has misappropriated that identity prior t
      • IANAL

        The issue is whether the plaintiff can compel the ISP to reveal the name of the person who may have committed the slander.

        from: http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html [abbottlaw.com]

        Defamation consists of the following:

        (1) a defamatory statement;
        (2) published to third parties; and
        (3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

        Defamatory statements must be communicated to a third party. You cannot defame someone by speaking to them alone, or by muttering t

    • No, if you claim to be a specific Ronald Fitch, and you aren't, that's identity theft.

      If I call up Domino's and say "I'm Jim Magoo at 100 main st and I wan't 1000 anchovy pizzas please", that's identity theft.

      If I call a potential employer and say "I'm Jim Magoo and I have an interview tomorrow, I just wanted to let you know that I don't wear any underwear and am totally into hot HR guys", that's ID theft.

      Neither the summary or the article really explain what's goin on here.

      I wan't to see this cartoon.
      • Jim Magoo sounds almost as obviously a fake name as John Doe (apologies to any Jim Magoo or John Doe out there), so if saying you're Jim Magoo is identity theft, then is the court stealing John Doe's identity by calling this guy John Doe? (Assuming, of course, this is not his real name, which would turn out to be a very weird coincidence.)
      • "No, if you claim to be a specific Ronald Fitch, and you aren't, that's identity theft."

        No, at least not legally. Identity theft requires more than just using someone's name. I haven't reviewed the indentity theft statutes in every state, but every state I have looked at requires for identity theft:

        1. First name and last name, or frst initial and last name;

        and 2. personal information.

        Both have to be there for identity theft to be an appropriate charge.

        "Personal information" is different from state
    • Wouldn't it be libel, not slander? It's written down, not spoken.
    • Actually, it the case had merit (and I'm not commenting on that aspect), it would be libel, not slander:

      slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

      libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
    • Just for the sake of accuracy:

      This would be libel, not slander. Slander is spoken defamation, libel is written or printed defamation.

    • It was said "If John Doe had sent the picture as a hard copy through...... [in] Ronald Fitch's neighborhood this would be a no contest case of slander."

      What is the picture was not a parady but a fact? Would they be still held responsible? For example, posting (real) nuddie pictures of a x-boyfriend in his neighborhood... What legal case can see had against the poster? Some might say it was private and should not been posted in the first place. But what if the printed images WERE OBTAINTED via email in the
    • If John Doe had sent the picture as a hard copy through the postal service or worse posted this throughout Ronald Fitch's neighborhood this would be a no contest case of slander.

      Well, given that libel is the term for printed defamation, I'd say that there would be no case for slander. However, even skipping that confusion of the terms, you also missed that the defamation must malign his character. This has generally been taken to mean that it requires public spread of the injurious lies. This wasn't pu
  • Since the justice brought it up, I'm now intensely curious as to why John Doe is hiding.

    I understand that there are some important principles involved here, but I'm not ready to accept that they are John Doe's overriding reasons to spend a lot of money on legal costs.

    (Maybe that's a little cynical.)
    • I'm guessing it's because as soon as his real name gets out, five hundred slashdotters are going to register gmail accounts with his name and start spamming people.
      (Well, okay, that's just what I'd do. Am I the only jerk on this site??? ;-)
    • Same reason you are posting as QMO and not as your real name. Just because you feel like it, and because you can say whatever you want within reason here without fearing easy repercussion.

      I'm not saying your true identity can't be determined - I'm just saying it isn't a no-brainer. People talk smack in semi-anonymous forums that they might not have talked if everybody immediately knew who it was.

      Love,
      Carly F.
      • Sure I post under a pseudonym, but I wouldn't spend $5 to keep you from knowing my real name, let alone thousands in legal costs and many (hundreds?) hours of my time.
        • Sure I post under a pseudonym, but I wouldn't spend $5 to keep you from knowing my real name, let alone thousands in legal costs and many (hundreds?) hours of my time.

          What if you live on the same street and are worried that the person trying to identify you is violent? What if you or a member of your family work for the person trying to identify you?

          Perhaps John Doe is in a very weak position relative to Mr. Fitch and therefore used an anonymous form of protest because it was the only safe way to so.

    • They live off the coast of Maine on a small Island where everyone knows everyone else.

      And chances are that they are old money.

      I am sure that everyone on that tiny Island would like to know who the jerk is. So he doesn't want anyone to know.

      I think that the problem of name usurpation is serious enough that there ought to be some kind of way to prevent people from doing it.

      In this case the guy sent hateful emails that he tried to attribute to someone else. It was a sleezey thing to do. I hope they find
  • If it's in my name it belongs to me. If it's in your name, it belongs to you.

    Fitch should ask that the ISP turn over the account to him since it is in his name. Then he can get access to any emails sent from or to that address.
    • You don't 'own' your name in the fact that you can't go out and sue somebody with the same name saying "That's my name, he's trying to steal my identity",
      • but in case there is someone who stole your identity, and bought a car, a house, etc., can you call the cops on him and then take possession of "your" stuff?
    • Perhaps one of the hundreds of Ronald Fitch's in the United States,least eleven of them found in Maine, would like to start a commune of sorts so that they can all share everything that is in their common name, since apparently your name on something implies ownership without question. Your philosophy of sharing via complete ownership is indeed novel.
      • Indeed a (this) name is not unique.
        But when it comes with a picture of this particular person holding the name in real life the "identity theft" claim does get a little more credible...
    • I hereby order you, the individual who is illegally stealing my identity, to please cease, desist, and turn over the "smooth wombat" name that is rightfully mine. Failure to do so immediately will result in civil and criminal proceedings against you.

      Thanks in advance, Smooth Q. Wombat
  • If the Maine Supreme Court has time to hear this. I guess it's setting precedent, but this just sounds like a really stupid case.
    • There's no such thing as a not slow day here in Maine. I've lived here my whole life and quite often something like a lethal car accident will be headline news across several counties because nothing else ever happens.

  • Names are funny. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by keyne9 ( 567528 )
    How many peopl share your name? How many want an e-mail address with that name in it? I wouldn't call it identity theft, even if it wasn't his name. If nothing else, the insipid idea that someone using a name identical to yours is stealing your identity is absurd. I know that my wonderfully common name has to have hundreds of others bearing my name and initials and none of them are, in fact, me. Things like SSID attempt to discern among people; names don't.

  • Anonymity vs. Identity Theft (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stormy Dragon ( 800799 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:08PM (#11338419)
    If the ISP was trying to protect the anonymity of its users, in these sense of not revealing who ObscureNetHandle@isp.com is, they might have an arguement. But that's not what's happening--the users in question aren't trying to be anonymous; they're trying to impersonate someone else. Arguing that's protected as free speech is like arguing that right of free assembly means I'm allowed to break into your house.
    • Shall we arrest the 5,000 Elvis impersonators in Vegas for commiting identity theft then?

      Certainly it's clear that they are not Elvis, just as it's certainly clear that the plantiff would not send an unflattering cartoon about himself. Impersonation is not identity theft.

  • Same name equals identity theft? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mopower70 ( 250015 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:09PM (#11338427) Homepage
    Since when does using the same name as someone else constitute identity theft? Maybe the cartoon was sent as Ronald Fitch the author. Or Ronald Fitch the ob-gyn specialist from Missouri. Or any one of the other hundred Ronald Fitchs showed up in my google search.
    • It becomes identify theft when you claim to be a specific Ronald Fitch, whom you are not.

      If my name happened to be Rob Malda, and I stood on the hilltops shouting "I'm Rob Malda and I like to touch little boys!", it's not ID theft.

      If I was shouting "I'm Rob Malda - founder of slashdot.org and assistant marketing director for Apple - and I like to touch little boys!", a line has been crossed. Because now, I'm pretending to be someone I'm not.
    • I posted this above under another thread, but just for completeness, simply using another's name is not legal identity theft -- legal identity theft requires the use of another's name along with that person's "personal infromation" (SSN, DL number, etc., but not address or phone number).
  • People need some basic writing training. What happened? He sent an email cartoon? To who? Himself? What does that have to do with him using the other guys name as his email address?

    What's at stake in this case, and what does it have to do with privacy? It sounds like simple defamation.

    That summary just sucks.
  • How is that identity theft?
  • Fat-finger "whitehouse.org" instead of "whitehouse.gov" some time.

  • victem? (Score:3)

    by Dracolytch ( 714699 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:17PM (#11338527) Homepage
    Victem? VictEm?

    Do you bastards want me to write you a spell checker? Oh, I'll do it alright. A little bit of longest common substring magic, and you won't look like a herd of idiots.

    Just give me the green light, and I'll make it happen. You know where to find me.

    ~D

  • Differing interpretations based on lack of facts (Score:4, Informative)

    by AceCaseOR ( 594637 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:18PM (#11338546) Homepage Journal
    From reading comments on the article and the article itself, I've got the impression that we don't have all the facts. From where I see it, it breaks down like this
    • If Doe registered the E-Mail address ronald.fitch@isp.net then it's not identity theft, he's just being a dick.
    • If Doe altered his header information to have his name appear in E-Mail clients as "Ronald Fitch" rather than "John Doe" (aka "Pulling a Burke"), then he's just a dick, and it's not Identity Theft.
    • If Doe registered for an E-Mail account at an ISP and, on the forms, said his name was Ronald Fitch, then at least he can be charged with fraud - by the ISP. Identity Theft charges are up to debate.
    • If John Doe not only gave Ronald Fitch's name to the ISP as his name when he signed up, but also set up billing so that Fitch was billed (or would be called if Doe failed to pay), then that would count as both fraud and, most likely, identity theft.
    So, is anyone from Maine, or even better, the community where this whole disturbance is taking place on Slashdot? If so, please enlighten us.
  • Com'on folks. If copying a song you haven't paid for isn't stealing, then neither is using someone else's name in an e-mail.

    Does Mr. Fitch no longer have an identity as a result of John Doe's action? Where is Mr. Doe physically storing Mr. Fitch's identity? Without finding that stolen identity in Mr. Doe's posession, I don't think Mr. Fitch has much of a case.

    Information wants to be free too.
    • So would this be a case of Identity Sharing?
    • Actually, there's nothing wrong with making copies of a song you haven't paid only insomuch as making copies of the song at _ALL_ isn't copyright inringement.

      This is the really weird thing about copyright infringement... it is the actual _copying_ that is the crime, but you can't tell that any particular copy made was an infringement until the copy is used for some purpose that exceeds what is permitted by the copyright act. Even then, it's not how the copy gets used that's the crime, it's still just the

    • I don't know if "Identity theft" is legally theft, but I'll take a stab. Theft is taking someone else's proberty while depriving them of it as well. In illegal copying of music or movies, etc., the item being taken is the exclusive license to distribute and profit from a work - is this property? If it is, then mass distribution of a work might be considered theft, although not necessarily the copying. However, the "object" being "stolen" is a right, which usually isn't treated as a stolen object; objects e

  • Major Innacuracies? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:23PM (#11338601) Homepage Journal
    Electronic communications leave a trail, unlike letters and phone calls, which can be truly anonymous, Levy said. If powerful entities can sue simply to identify their critics, free speech will be chilled, he said. "That's what makes these Internet cases so scary."

    Letters can be traced by the postal mark, but can still be pretty anonymous at that. Phone Calls are not anonymous at all. The phone company keeps a record of what phone calls what number, and then of course there is caller ID. I don't know where this guy got thinking that phone calls were "truly anonymous". Even phone calls from pay phones can be traced back to the origin. Even if the user on the other end cant be.

    • Re:Major Innacuracies? (Score:3, Informative)

      by taustin ( 171655 )
      Phone calls can be as anonymous as postal mail, if you pay attention to the details. Payphones are one way. Another is a prepaid cellphone. If the "user on the other end" can't be traced, it's anonymous.

  • Ronald Fitch (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    IMO, it's clear that Doe is maliciously trying to impersonate Fitch, and that's not right. It might be legal, but it's not right.

    And I would bet $20 that Doe's real name is not Ronald Fitch.
  • Does this mean that I won't be able to check into hotels as Abe Froman any more?
  • which Doe sent out under Fitch's name - amounted to identity theft.

    Sounds more like forgery, than identity theft. Maybe the plantiff should have sued under the CAN-SPAM act instead.

    • Sounds more like forgery, than identity theft.

      The parent story is woefully inadequate - it doesn't provide enough information about the case to make a determination one way or another. As for the "forgery", did the spoofed email address contain Fitch's full legal name? If not, then its just a frogery [linuxmafia.com] (In other words, its satire and Fitch is SOL in the courts).

  • I think that if the person that sent out the email had ginned up a Hotmail account and sent it from there, they'd have reason to claim parody/satire and have a basis for claiming anonymity. But creating an account under the target's name, they stepped over the line into fraud.

    Then again, I just use my sense; IANAL :-)

  • Would this still be an issue if the John Doe in this case had actually sent the email from an account attributed to the name John Doe?

    What if the person being satirized was named John Doe? Would an anonymous message from "John Doe" receive the same consideration?

    Should the name "Ronald Fitch" Receive any more protection than the name "John Doe" (or, for that matter, "John Smith", also used for anonymity, though less often)? Or even the infamous Alan Smithee?

  • Represent!
  • I know the damage that identity theft can do. But I have trouble with the plaintiff argument. Identity theft means the theft of personal sensitive information.

    Was any of this information used to:

    • open a credit account without his knowledge...?
    • extract sensitive information from public offices...?
    • swindle his bank account...?
    • leave delinquent accounts in his name...?
    • induce collection agencies to confront him...?
    • damage his credit record...?
    • damage his legal integrity...?

    These are much more serious th

  • is using a pseudonym "Identity theft"? Where did this guy cross the line (legally) from one to the other?

    • He crossed the line when he used another person's name. You using a pseudonym is fine. You using my name as a psuedonym, effectively representing to other people that you are me, stands on the wrong side of the line.

      This one should be a slam-dunk for Fitch. Whether the cartoon is protected free speech or not should be irrelevant. The right to free speech doesn't include the right to attribute your speech to someone else without permission.

      • "He crossed the line when he used another person's name" No, he didn't. You don't have exclusive use of Todd Knarr, so I can absolutely use it as my pseudonym. "You using my name as a psuedonym, effectively representing to other people that you are me, stands on the wrong side of the line" Here you made two points which are essentially unrelated. Yes, I CAN use your name as a pseudonym. Sorry, but yes I can. What I DO with it, however, is where the problem lies. Presenting yourself as someone else c

        • When you make statements in public with my name attached to them when that name isn't also your own, you are presenting yourself as me. This is especially the case here, where the party mis-using the name knew it belonged to someone else and knew exactly who it belonged to. The two statements I made are very directly related.

        • There's using a pseudonym that happens to match the name of somebody else, then there's using that psuedonym to then send out materials related to that person.

      • He crossed the line when he used another person's name. You using a pseudonym is fine. You using my name as a psuedonym, effectively representing to other people that you are me, stands on the wrong side of the line.

        Which line is that then, Todd?

  • In order to form an intelligent opinion on this issue, I'm going to need some more information.

    Specifically, I'm going to need to see the ironic satire cartoon of Fitch & wife, along with a real photo for comparison.

    I think I'll send him an email asking for it...
  • Recalling my old civil liberties class, the First Amendment covers both your right to speak and your freedom from being compelled to speak by the government. E.g., you can't be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom, although many school districts would have you believe otherwise.

    This case doesn't involve the government, but it covers similiar ground. It's one thing for me to say "Bob Smith says dogs should be served in restaurants." (And I don't mean as patrons.)

    It's a differe

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close