, SecurityFocus 2003-08-29
Issuing an egregiously overbroad subpoena for stored e-mail qualifies as a computer intrusion in violation of anti-hacking laws, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, deciding a case in which a litigant in a civil matter subpoenaed every single piece of e-mail his courtroom adversary sent or received.
Expand all |
Post comment
Hacking-by-subpoena ruled illegal
2003-09-02
Timothy Smith <tgsmith (at) grouch (dot) com [email concealed]>
Timothy Smith <tgsmith (at) grouch (dot) com [email concealed]>
"Easynews.com was contacted by phone by the Los Angeles FBI office on Thursday afternoon, August 21st. The FBI informed Easynews.com that an individual had used the Easynews.com UseNet server to upload the SoBig.F virus on Monday, August 18th. The FBI was requesting any information relating to the account used to upload the virus to the UseNet network. Easynews.com with-held the account information until a faxed subpoena from the FBI arrived on Friday, August 22nd, at 10:53am MST (1:53pm EDT)."
Easynews received a phone call from someone who said they were the FBI in the next state. They then received a fax of a purported subpoena and provided information about a client. I'm not sure that the courts recognize such a thing as "service by fax" and I reiterate the former Justice Dept. Prosecutor's statement quoted in the article: "The real crime here is the ISP getting the subpoena didn't contact the customer immediately and say, 'what do you want to do?' Every subpoena is overbroad. It's the responsibility of the party receiving the subpoena to try and narrow it."
The Burger Court gave the force of law to bogus warrants. Will the Successor-to-Rehnquist Court have to do the same for the bogus subpoena?
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/6837/21877#21877