EFF Fighting For Whistleblower's Privacy Rights, Following Sham Lawsuit
from the 4th-amendment,-where-are-you? dept
The EFF is helping out in a case to look at whether or not you have an expectation of privacy in your email. The details of the case itself are really quite stunning, so I'll just repeat the EFF's summary:The whistleblower, Charles Rehberg, uncovered systematic mismanagement of funds at a Georgia public hospital. He alerted local politicians and others to the issue through a series of faxes. A local prosecutor in Dougherty County, Ken Hodges, conspired with the hospital and used a sham grand jury subpoena to obtain Mr. Rehberg's personal email communications. The prosecutor then provided that information to private investigators for the hospital and indicted Mr. Rehberg for a burglary and assault that never actually occurred. All the criminal charges against Mr. Rehberg were eventually dismissed. Hodges is currently running for Attorney General of Georgia in the Democratic primary.Scary stuff. And it gets worse, too, as apparently the court gave "immunity to county prosecutors and their investigators for manipulating and fabricating "evidence" and defaming Mr. Rehberg as a felon in comments to the press."
Mr. Rehberg filed a civil suit against the prosecutors and their investigator for their misconduct, but the appeals court erroneously ruled that he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his private email.
This seems like a massive abuse of power to punish a whistleblower, using emails obtained via questionable means. Bad news all around.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: privacy, whistleblower
Companies: eff
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So much for defamation laws being used to protect against actual defamation. Instead, the laws are only designed to protect the guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocking
How can this be legal?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shocking
BTW, it's amazing how the law grants immunity for something as harmful as intentionally fraudulent behavior but it doesn't grant immunity for something as harmless as (intentional or unintentional) intellectual property infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprise.
Lawyers protect their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy?
I am coming along nicely. Pretty soon I will have you all under the same rules under the guise of trade agreements. We WILL put little chips implanted in you so I can know your every move and thought. Ill keep distracting you with little slut hottie car wrecks, and sports figures that cant keep it in their pants, and all the while I will use my influence to erode away at that pesky little thing you call freedom that keeps me and my corporate buddies from taking all of the wealth and power.
We WILL win. Wanna know why?
Baaaa Baaaa Baaaa All the little sheeples are too afraid. Big bad ass Americans... pussies!
You are losing and don't even know it.
You deserve what you let happen to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crook?
Ken Hodges appears to have gotten away with questionable, if not illegal, activity.
If the article is accurate, Ken Hodges is not trust worthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Squeaky Clean Wikipedia page
I have removed obvious partisan attacks and the details of alleged ethical violations....Regarding the inclusion or exclusion of Hodges' alleged ethical violations, I advise we keep them out of this article. Not only do they overwhelm the article, but it looks like all the charges have been dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Squeaky Clean Wikipedia page
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate to say it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everybody knows that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was his personal email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revolution is required...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA smackdown
I would love to see the DMCA used in this way. The DMCA has been used to violate the constitutional rights of many under far flimsier circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]