Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!dawn From: dawn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dawn Owens) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: e-mail privacy Message-ID: <1991Mar3.170121.11012@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 3 Mar 91 17:01:21 GMT References: <13628@life.ai.mit.edu> <13640@life.ai.mit.edu> Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 24 Someone (sorry, I don't recall who) suggested that because the sysadmins told this guy that they were reading his mail, that he no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy. I am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the expectation of privacy was NOT a subjective one but an objective one. That is, there are some places where one *should* expect privacy. And this is not dependent on any subjective feelings about whether things are private or not by a particular person involved. For instance, I don't think that regarding conversations held on a public sidewalk, one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even if it seems private, or that no one is listening to you. On the other hand, you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding conversations held in your bedroom. EVEN if some guy shows up at your door and says "Hey, I planted a tape recorder in your bedroom, and I can hear everything you say, " your reasonable expectation of privacy is not eliminated. That is, one can not shield him/herself from wrongdoing simply by telling you he/she is going to do it. If that were the case, Ted Bundy could have put up a disclaimer in his volkswagon, and still be alive today. (I know, not a great analogy.) Also, I was under the impression that the ECPA did not use an expectation of privacy standard at all. I will reread the act, but I don't recall seeing it there. Dawn