[FoRK] Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets
sdw at lig.net
Thu Sep 22 14:21:27 PDT 2011
On 9/22/11 7:23 AM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
> On 9/21/2011 8:34 PM, Stephen Williams wrote:
>> Some community colleges, at least, and many companies are going to the
>> commercial cloud for their email and other infrastructure. If I'm using
>> a Gmail account, is that company owned? (No.) Even if it is paid for by
>> the company, is it company owned in the sense that they can raid it?
>> (Maybe, but not as clearly so.)
> I can't see community college professors doing the type of research that would bring the attention of government repression.
> Unfortunately, if the school owns the domain, it owns the email regardless of where it's located. Even hosted there's still an
> admin, but these type of mail ownership cases have been tested and tested again in the courts. The company owns it. In fact, just
> last year
> Ontario v Quon was decided by the supreme court in favor of the employer.
That decision is almost a total punt: They specifically deferred to future plateaus of current rapid evolution on important points:
> (1) The Court does not resolve the parties’ disagreement over Quon’s privacy expectation. Prudence counsels caution before the
> facts in this case are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations of
> employees using employer-provided communication devices. Rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information
> transmission are evident not just in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior. At present, it is
> uncertain how workplace norms, and the law’s treatment of them, will evolve. Because it is therefore preferable to dispose of this
> case on narrower grounds, the Court assumes,/arguendo,/that: (1) Quon had a reasonable privacy expectation; (2) petitioners’
> review of the transcript constituted aFourth Amendment <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv>search; and (3)
> the principles applicable to a government employer’s search of an employee’s physical office apply as well in the electronic
> sphere. Pp. 9–12.
>> Anyway, why wouldn't someone just use their smart phone and maybe a
>> bluetooth keyboard these days? Own the device, own the Internet
>> connection, use a public/commercial/personally owned/leased resource.
>> Not to mention that work email is arguably usable for personal use a
>> certain percentage of the time, just as personal phone calls
>> traditionally were.
> Corporate subsidized smartphones are also fair game. :-)
Highly doubtful that a company would prevail in a non-court ordered search in that case. Owning the account is owning the account.
If you were given a living allowance stipend, would you lose all privacy rights to your bedroom? Conversely, if there were a good
enough argument to get a subpoena as part of discovery (but not fishing), you could get into (i.e. get the court to order that you
provide info) both the account and your bedroom.
More information about the FoRK