eBay Sues Craigslist, As Craig And Jim Dilute eBay's Share

New Jersey Says ISPs Need A Subpoena To Give Up Subscriber Info

from the it-really-needed-a-decision? dept

Tue, Apr 22nd 2008 1:02pm — Mike Masnick

A bunch of folks have sent in the link about the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that ISPs need a valid subpoena to hand over private info on your account to anyone -- including the police. While people are rightfully cheering this on as an excellent decision, what's troubling is the idea that anyone has felt otherwise. ISPs (and other service providers) shouldn't be handing out your private data without a valid legal reason no matter what -- and that should not have required a legal decision to make clear.

Filed Under: isps, new jersey, subpoena, subscriber info

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2008 @ 1:45pm

Except...
Why is this troubling? I personally don't believe that there's anything in the U.S. Constitution that precludes a person or company from handing over personal data by their own volition. That's why I think we need a federal law that explicitly states what types of personal information companies may share.

Obviously if the police coerced someone into revealing data that people had an expectation would remain private, that would be different. But that's not what happened in this case. Not to mention that this only affects New Jersey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wes, 22 Apr 2008 @ 1:48pm

uhh
Have you heard of the fourth ammendement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2008 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: uhh
  Read the article. The court found that it was only the NJ Consitution that gave extra protection. If you're going to rely on the 4th amendment for protected you from your ISP from freely giving out your personal information, then good luck. I'd rather have a law that says if they give out that information without a subpoena, it's inadmissible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Le Blue Dude, 22 Apr 2008 @ 1:57pm

Honestly
This sort of outrage is silly. There will always be fools who believe that the law goes further or less far then common sense/thought would say.

This is WHY trials exist, especially for things like this. If you keep saying it's outrageous that such a trial is even occurring, one might start thinking you were a fool. The trials are necessary. They're supposed to send a clear message to silly people. because 50% of the population is silly, 25% is massively foolish, and 25% is sage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheDock22, 22 Apr 2008 @ 2:02pm

Quote of the Day to Fit the Article
"There is no such thing as an underestimate of average intelligence." - Henry Adams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2008 @ 4:55pm
  
  Re: Quote of the Day to Fit the Article
  "There is no such thing as an underestimate of average intelligence." - Henry Adams
  Statistics show that 50% of the population is of below average intelligence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Philip, 23 Apr 2008 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Re: Quote of the Day to Fit the Article
    LOL That is too funny!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 22 Apr 2008 @ 2:41pm

Further to the first comment, I personally would like to see it made illegal to hand over any confidential information -web-surfing history, bank records, the works- without the production of a search warrant. (This may overlap slightly with the subpoena as defined under US law.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Russ, 22 Apr 2008 @ 3:48pm

Details
That information always required a subpoena. The NJSC says that it has to be a grand jury subpoena now instead of the municipal subpoena that was used in the core case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Computer Consulting Kit Blog, 22 Apr 2008 @ 4:25pm

I think it’s a good sign of recognition of the increased importance of security that people are starting to re-think the way laws work to accommodate changing technology. Technological advancements, particularly when it comes to the Internet and the sudden instant availability of so much information on so many people (including some sensitive information like social security numbers, bank account numbers, credit card activity, etc.) has definitely changed the game significantly and I think it’s important that we continue to reshape and re-envision laws in order to best protect people and re-interpret what everything means and what we can and cannot accept if we want to keep information secure. Even if we’re just reminding people of what is legal and what is illegal, it’s still going to be important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]