On 9/17/2015 4:35 PM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
I don't think that is actually sound legal reasoning. Has that
interpretation come out of a court?
The Supreme Court of the United States:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-third-party-doctrine/282721/
On 9/18/2015 10:10 AM, Chris Markiewicz wrote:
> This is such a bizarre interpretation of "Third-party". A password
> should be considered a secret between two parties: client and server.
> But again, conceded that this is a problem.
It's not a bizarre interpretation. It's case law. If you store your mail
(for example) on my server then you have voluntarily given your
information to me. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy
regarding that information. A password is no different.
If you think my privacy policy protects you then think again. It only
stipulates that I won't give (or sell) your information to /other/ third
parties. It offers you no protection within my organization.
--
Rich P.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
