NJ Supreme Court Rules For Internet Privacy

dprovine writes "The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that ISPs can't release customer information without a warrant. The unanimous decision reads in part 'We now hold that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by Article I ... of the New Jersey Constitution, in the subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers — just as New Jersey citizens have a privacy interest in their bank records stored by banks and telephone billing records kept by phone companies.'"

Re:great news for thieves

[SimonGhent]

This is awesome, it means I can continue running my warez site and harvesting email addresses for my spam bots without fear of getting caught. Cheers judge!

Unless the authorities get a warrant. Surely that's the way it should be?

EULA

[techpawn]

But what if the ISP puts some "fine print" in the EULA that says that they CAN give your information (IP address and/or more) to third party and that by accepting you consent?

just as New Jersey citizens have a privacy interest in their bank records stored by banks and telephone billing records kept by phone companies

If the ISP can hide behind the EULA as a contract how long before banks and telecoms jump on this bandwagon?

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester

[dreamchaser]

And that is exactly the kind of conflict that will bring it to the Supremes. The Feds will try to get information without a warrant and the conflict will ensue.

Re:great news for thieves

[Applekid]

Surely that's the way it should be?

Yes, except don't forget that even though there are separation of powers, they're ALL on the same team. If, say, the FISA court is any guide, only 5 out of 14,000 warrants [slate.com] were rejected by that court. Even if NJ courts are three times as finicky about their warrants, that's still 99.9% warrants happily approved.

I doubt real world warrants are as agonized and debated as on Law and Order. The reality is more likely that they're handed out without much coaxing, since it helps propagate the system (with warrants leading to charges leading to trials leading to collection of fees and justifying salaries).

Re:EULA

[ArwynH]

What EULA? They don't license you anything. This isn't software we are talking about you know. It's a contract you sign with your ISP. Their services in exchange for your money.

On the less pedantic side, do you really think the ISPs want to give your data away? There is no profit in doing so, in fact it might even cause customer loss, which is bad for business. No, the reason they give out your data is because they think they have a legal obligation to do so. Now the court has said it isn't, so they won't.

Re:EULA

[jafiwam]

If the ISP can hide behind the EULA as a contract how long before banks and telecoms jump on this bandwagon?

Zero days. Banks are, and have been for a long time, training various staff members how to scan through account history and locate "suspicious" (as defined by the feds) activity.

It's called the "Know your customer" campaign.

And, since it's the bank data, the can do this as often and however they want, hand the data over as a friendly tip and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it. (Aside from not use banks, which will probably get you on some other list.)

I know this, because I helped develop (the tech side) of several online courses given by several state banking associations during the 90's.

The banks already are spying on you, and it's all OK because it's strictly 'voluntary' (wink wink nudge nudge here's some payback in the form of ignoring your illegal loans to relatives).

Bankers in general, are always pansy ass suck ups, and especially so when it comes to the feds.

Guilty but let go

[mlwmohawk]

As a card carrying member of the ACLU, I regret this sort of case, but it is never the less the proper outcome. For all the people who hate the ACLU because the defend the "guilty" because of a technicality of law, remember this sort of case.

Sometimes the question of an individual's guilt is secondary to the precedent which would be formed. It is absolutely the space between the rock and the hard place. Do you let a criminal go free or do you let an abuse of power go unchecked?

More often than not, it is a "guilty" person who is on the receiving end of injustice such as invasion of privacy or violation of the 4th amendment. It is unfortunate that we don't have more clearly innocent people to protect. Generally speaking, police believe the "criminal" to be guilty. More often than not, they are, but this does not excuse a violation of constitutional rights to get a conviction.

Our rights are in place to prevent the innocent from being falsely convicted by creating a system of checks and balances that is supposed to prevent abuse by police, prosecutors, etc. Inherent in the system is the acknowledgment that people are corrupt and corruptible but the hope that not all people are in the same pockets.

My favorite example is O.J. Simpson. I am as confident that he killed his wife as I am that police planted evidence to get a conviction.

State and Federal citizen's rights

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

As a historical note, that's the way the Founders meant things to work.

The Federalist Papers tried to reassure people that the proposed new Federal government couldn't succeed as a tyranny because the states would defend the rights of state citizens.

This has been largely forgotten since the national government had to step in and override state-level oppression of African-Americans.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester

[Ioldanach]

IANAL, but if I have certain Rights under my State Constitution, the fact that the same Rights are not specifically elaborated in the U.S. Constitution shouldn't mean that agents of the Federal government are free to trample on them.

That's a problem that's existed since the time the Constitution was written. The Bill of Rights was a compromise because the Constitution is supposed to be a document saying very specifically what the government can do. By adding in a list of citizens rights they can't infringe upon the result is the implication that everything else is fair game, even though the Constitution specifically says, basically, "If it doesn't say you can do it, then you can't."

Not that we're using it anymore anyways.

Re:EULA

[Dusty00]

Two items of interest (disclaimer: I'm a former employee of the banking industry):

Banker's aren't trained to look for suspicious items in the invasive sense that you're suggesting. They don't check to see if you've made any purchases to "ImprovisedExplosiveSupplies.com". The suspicious activity they're looking for are related to money laundering. The "know your customer" campaign at most banks was related to some of the PATRIOT Act requirements imposed post 9/11 (and unlike most of the PATRIOT Act the requirements were relatively reasonable). After 9/11 all banks had to keep records of how you were identified when opening an account (copy of drivers license is sufficient I think, but I've been out of banking for a while).

The other item you leave out is that by Federal Law all bank employees (and I think this even filters down as low as the janitor) are required to have data protection training at least one per year. My bank is the last place I worry about my information getting out through.

And I don't know about the bankers you've met, but most I've met are very enamored with written rules. At the bank I work at, we weren't giving any information out to anyone who didn't have a warrant.