home

Court Rules Wiretap Law Applies to Spyware, Blocks Introduction of Chat Transcripts

In a small but welcome step towards privacy protection, a Florida Court has barred a party from introducing into evidence the fruit of a spyware program that was secretly installed on the other party's computer. The Florida court ruled the state's wiretapping law covered spyware and precluded the admission.

The case is O'Brien v. O'Brien and the opinion is here. [Hat tip to Eric Sterling of Criminal Justice Policy Foundation and Allen St. Pierre of NORML]

Beverly O’Brien thought her husband, James, had another woman in his life. So she installed some software on his computer that would secretly record his online activities. Her worst fears were confirmed when she caught him going into a private online chat room with another woman, where the two engaged in some extremely private conversations.

But when she tried to introduce the recorded conversations as evidence in her divorce proceedings, she ran into a roadblock: Florida’s anti-wiretapping law. The statute makes it a crime to intercept electronic communications without authorization, and a Florida appellate court ruled that Beverly O’Brien’s actions, though they did not involve the typical recording of telephone conversations, violated this statute.

....The issue goes far beyond Florida. The statute is modeled on the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., which prohibits the same type of online snooping anywhere in the country. ....The appellate court, however, found there was "a rather fine distinction" between intercepting an electronic communication while it was en route and copying a stored communication. And the court wanted help in drawing the distinction in this case.

The Court looked to federal law in resolving the issue.

"The federal courts have consistently held that electronic communications, in order to be intercepted, must be acquired contemporaneously with transmission, and that electronic communications are not intercepted within the meaning of the Federal Wiretap Act if they are retrieved from storage."

Nevertheless, the Florida court found the messages in this case were still basically in transit when they were copied because there was only an "evanescent time period" between the time the communications were in transit and when they were stored (and copied) in the computer.

< Stupid Criminal of the Week | Sean Hannity 's Dating Service >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Court Rules Wiretap Law Applies to Spyware, Bl (none / 0) (#1)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:45:55 PM EST
    From Slashdot- "D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee"." Man this is creepy.

    Re: Court Rules Wiretap Law Applies to Spyware, Bl (none / 0) (#2)
    by Johnny on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 08:06:51 PM EST
    Tell me thats a joke pigwiggle... GAIN should be close to being illegal, can you imagine if the phone company installed recording devices on your telephone and then sold the conversations to a 3rd party?

    Re: Court Rules Wiretap Law Applies to Spyware, Bl (none / 0) (#3)
    by cp on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:15:26 PM EST
    gee johnny, what makes you think they haven't?

    This is the current law in Mass. Of course, they don't call it wiretap, it's "electronic interception" which in this rare instance actually makes the law much clearer. You can get a regular search warrant for one party consent interception in Mass, you need a wiretap warrant (much higher standard, organized crime & a short list of crimes & showing no other method is likely to work) for no party consent. The more complex case is in a situation where it is not an agent of the state that plants the spyware/bug, then a prosecution could theoretically use the evidence and charge the spy-er with a 5 year felony. I'm drawing a parellel with a cordless phone case, though the likelyhood of an actual prosecution for a violation of the statute would be much more likely with overt action to spy on another...