Comments on: Facebook May be On the Hook for Scanning Private Messages for Links https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/12/facebook-may-be-on-the-hook-for-scanning-private-messages-for-links.htm Mon, 05 Jan 2015 17:10:21 +0000 hourly 1 By: Cybergovernance Reading List (2015-01-05) - Spatializations https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/12/facebook-may-be-on-the-hook-for-scanning-private-messages-for-links.htm#comment-1117 Mon, 05 Jan 2015 17:10:21 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=13548#comment-1117 […] Facebook May be On the Hook for Scanning Private Messages for Links – Technology and Marketing Law Blog […]

]]> By: curtisneeley https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/12/facebook-may-be-on-the-hook-for-scanning-private-messages-for-links.htm#comment-1113 Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:50:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=13548#comment-1113 U.S. Code § 2520 – Recovery of civil damages authorized

Someone must own FB stock because no lawyer misses PUNITIVE damages?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2520

]]> By: curtisneeley https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/12/facebook-may-be-on-the-hook-for-scanning-private-messages-for-links.htm#comment-1112 Mon, 29 Dec 2014 23:49:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=13548#comment-1112 I recommend seeking legislation because US Courts are wholly unable to understand 18 §2511. ALL interstate communications of email are wire communications because there was never a oly new medium.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000988155 My complaint is for GOOG violating and being allowed to violate 18 §2511 and computer fraud laws and is before the overworked Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for Summary Judgment.

4. The Ninth Circuit holds for a communication to be “intercepted” within the meaning of ECPA, “it must be acquired during transmission, not while it is in electronic storage.” See Konop,302 F.3d at 878. This implies communications in electronic storage are possibly not being transmitted or one flavor of judicial “dogma” among many.

5. The First Circuit held, however, “email messages” are “intercepted” when they are acquired while in any “transient electronic storage that is intrinsic to the communication process.” United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67, 85 (1st Cir. 2005) (en banc). The First Circuit suggests electronic communications can be in “electronic storage” and during transmission at the same time. See id. p 79.

6. How close the time of acquisition must be to transmission remains an open question in order to qualify as criminal “interception”. It is clear to common people the judicial “gobbledygook” tacked into U.S. law does not mean simultaneous depending only on which oligarch twists this law to fit a desired ruling.

7. The Eleventh Circuit suggests “contemporaneous” must mean a communication “in flight” long after homing pigeons became obsolete. United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039, 1050 (11th Cir. 2003). The First Circuit held the “contemporaneity” requirement could be read to exclude only acquisitions “made a substantial amount of time after material was put into electronic storage” in re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litigation, 329 F.3d 9, 21 (1st Cir. 2003) This “reading” would also require a Congressional amendment because “contemporaneous” is not found in 18 U.S.C. §2511, nor implied anywhere therein but was alleged to be current law in error during the show cause hearing.

]]>