Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

boston.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#31

Post by declan »

driverdan wrote: post #28
dripton wrote: post #2

Glad to see that she's being forced to step down after such an egregious invasion of privacy. But that's just a school. The much more important case is whether anyone in the federal government gets punished when they do the same thing without a warrant. So far, it doesn't look like it.

What makes you think the government is required to get a warrant to read your email? Anything older than 180 days is considered fair game.

Not after the 6th Circuit's decision in Warshak, at least for major email providers. Non-email stored data such as Dropbox or Google Drive files, on the other hand...

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#32

Post by declan »

jtchang wrote: post #17

I'm confused. Isn't it perfectly legal for the institution to search your e-mail records? I know when you work at a company generally the company can monitor everything you do (including e-mail).

Institutions have the ability to adopt more privacy protective policies, effectively relinquishing rights that they would otherwise have by virtue of owning the system.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#33

Post by tss20147 »

dripton wrote: post #2

Glad to see that she's being forced to step down after such an egregious invasion of privacy. But that's just a school. The much more important case is whether anyone in the federal government gets punished when they do the same thing without a warrant. So far, it doesn't look like it.

Egregious invasion of privacy? The dean authorized a search of the subject lines of emails sent by a specific set of employees using an email system provided by their employer. A system which based upon law and I'm willing to guess the acceptable use policy faculty agree to, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy when using. This was done in order to determine if student information, which the university has an obligation to protect, was leaked along with other information regarding the disciplinary action. Doesn't sound like an invasion of privacy at all and certainly not egregious.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#34

Post by rayiner »

jholman wrote: post #27
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dean of Harvard is stepping down not because there is anything illegal about her searching through the e-mails of faculty (your employer has every right to search your work e-mail), but because it was in bad taste in an academic institution which made the Dean ineffective as a figurehead. Similarly, there is nothing definitively illegal about the federal government asking Google to voluntarily hand over your e-ma…

My apologies for changing the subject, but do you have any evidence at all that Google has ever "voluntarily hand[ed] over [anyone's] e-mails", or was that just a random slur? Google's stated policy is to fight government requisition of data, but ultimately to comply with the law. That is to say, Google claims to be as anti-government-surveillance as it is possible for a corporation to be. I am aware of no evidence w…

> My apologies for changing the subject, but do you have any evidence at all that Google has ever "voluntarily hand[ed] over [anyone's] e-mails", or was that just a random slur?

I didn't say they did. I said: "the federal government [has asked] Google to voluntarily hand over your e-mails." I referenced Google because of: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/13753-gov-t-requests-google-....

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#35

Post by rayiner »

declan wrote: post #29
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dean of Harvard is stepping down not because there is anything illegal about her searching through the e-mails of faculty (your employer has every right to search your work e-mail), but because it was in bad taste in an academic institution which made the Dean ineffective as a figurehead. Similarly, there is nothing definitively illegal about the federal government asking Google to voluntarily hand over your e-ma…

Saying "there is nothing definitely illegal" about FedGov asking an email provider to let it snoop on emails without due process is like saying "there is nothing definitely wrong in saying bubble sort is the most efficient sorting algorithm." It sounds reasonable only if you're unfamiliar with the topic. Under the Wiretap Act, an FBI agent who "procures any other person to intercept" or "endeavors to intercept" e-mai…

I should probably have used "definitely unconstitutional" since I was talking about the constitutional aspect, but in any case the Wiretap Act does not protect e-mail older than 180 days: https://www.cdt.org/issue/wiretap-ecpa.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#36

Post by larrys »

mdwelsh wrote: post #24

As a former professor at Harvard, this is a welcome move. However, I don't think it goes far enough, and it should have happened much sooner. One thing I will say: The fact that the administration felt the need to snoop on employee e-mail to "track down" a press leak underscores how backwards and insecure Harvard can feel at times. It's just shocking that anyone thought that this was a good idea, and that they contin…

"underscores how backwards and insecure Harvard can feel at times"

You do realize of course that most people in the world would give a testicle, a breast (or two) to be affiliated with that University, right?

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#37

Post by declan »

rayiner wrote: post #34
jholman wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My apologies for changing the subject, but do you have any evidence at all that Google has ever "voluntarily hand[ed] over [anyone's] e-mails", or was that just a random slur? Google's stated policy is to fight government requisition of data, but ultimately to comply with the law. That is to say, Google claims to be as anti-government-surveillance as it is possible for a corporation to be. I am aware of no evidence w…

> My apologies for changing the subject, but do you have any evidence at all that Google has ever "voluntarily hand[ed] over [anyone's] e-mails", or was that just a random slur? I didn't say they did. I said: "the federal government [has asked] Google to voluntarily hand over your e-mails." I referenced Google because of: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/13753-gov-t-requests-google-... .

You misinterpreted the CNSNews.com article. You used the term voluntary but the incidents referred to in it are involuntary demands. That is, they represent legal process, such as a search warrant, a (d) order or grand jury subpoena for non-content logs, etc. If Google gets a valid court order, it is required by law to involuntarily comply. Similarly, if the cops show up at 6am at your home with a valid search warrant, you're required to involuntarily let them in and conduct their search.

Also the good folks at CNSNews.com (published by the conservative advocacy group Media Research Center) would probably not be my first choice for a survey of surveillance and electronic privacy law. For instance the article fails to mention that, at the time it was published, Google required search warrants for all e-mail -- an important detail.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#38

Post by declan »

rayiner wrote: post #35
declan wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "there is nothing definitely illegal" about FedGov asking an email provider to let it snoop on emails without due process is like saying "there is nothing definitely wrong in saying bubble sort is the most efficient sorting algorithm." It sounds reasonable only if you're unfamiliar with the topic. Under the Wiretap Act, an FBI agent who "procures any other person to intercept" or "endeavors to intercept" e-mai…

I should probably have used "definitely unconstitutional" since I was talking about the constitutional aspect, but in any case the Wiretap Act does not protect e-mail older than 180 days: https://www.cdt.org/issue/wiretap-ecpa .

Re: the Wiretap Act, you're quite right. But fortunately the Fourth Amendment does: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025650-281.html

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#39

Post by declan »

tptacek wrote: post #25
aioprisan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard College, not all schools at Harvard. And simply handing over emails is illegal without a warrant. The issue here was with blanket access to all emails (read: all students) without probable cause.

In most situations it is probably not illegal to hand over your emails without a warrant; it depends entirely on the terms of your access to your email service.

This is another area where your intuition might say A but in reality the law is !A.

Under federal law an email provider may not "knowingly divulge" the contents of email "to any governmental entity" without a court order or emergency situation involving "serious physical injury." Violations are punishable by "imprisonment for not more than 1 year" and civil liability.

It's true that there's an exception to the law. That says providers may share the contents of customers' communications only "with the lawful consent" of the user. A federal appeals court in 2003 narrowed that, saying consent exists only when the "party knew about and consented to the interception." And the FTC has said that it's unlawful for a company not "to adequately disclose" it's sharing information.

Translation: if Comcast buried a we-will-disclose-all-your-email-to-the-FBI in the fine print of its terms of service, its executives risk felony charges (and mass defections). In the real world, Comcast doesn't do that -- and it is illegal to hand over your emails without a warrant.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#40

Post by tptacek »

declan wrote: post #39
tptacek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most situations it is probably not illegal to hand over your emails without a warrant; it depends entirely on the terms of your access to your email service.

This is another area where your intuition might say A but in reality the law is !A. Under federal law an email provider may not "knowingly divulge" the contents of email "to any governmental entity" without a court order or emergency situation involving "serious physical injury." Violations are punishable by "imprisonment for not more than 1 year" and civil liability. It's true that there's an exception to the law. T…

Employers can share email messages without any consent. IT operators do not face felony charges for establishing that term. Where is the line drawn? Where do companies cease to have the freedom to establish their own contracts with their users?

Also, what's the felony statute to which you're referring?

Post reply on HN