STOCK QUOTES     More market data...

Inbox / Charles Bermant
House e-mail bill raises the bar on privacy

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

The E-Mail Privacy Act of 2004, which lists U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, as a sponsor, was introduced in response to a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that the wiretap law did not apply to e-mail. Backers of the bill fear this precedent could lead to the ability of ISPs to read customers' e-mails more freely and law-enforcement authorities are governed by fewer privacy protections in order to intercept this communications.

The idea is to modernize the privacy laws, so people feel as secure their e-mail is as protected as their phone conversations. But what is really safe, private or accurate is still in the beholder's eye. This law, if passed, is more about setting precedents and governing future actions than changing how people really behave.

A guarantee that e-mail is "as protected as phone conversations" is a sliding scale, depending on your penchant for illegal activity and your paranoia level. Security assurances aside, many cellphone users are never convinced their conversations aren't coming out of a ham radio somewhere.

And whatever the government decides is legal, e-mail users can never be sure their messages are read only by the recipient. Because messages bounce from one server to another, you can never be certain that someone, somewhere doesn't have a copy.

So the unfortunate caveat of e-mail communication is to never send a message that you couldn't bear to read on a Web page somewhere. Oddly enough, this is not a big deal for a huge percentage of all messages.

They are only of interest to the sender and recipient, and are hardly worth the effort of interception. In like manner, you could set up a directional microphone on any busy street and most of what you'd overhear would bore you to tears.

This law is a good idea because it sets behavioral limits, and keeps the government out of our metaphorical bedrooms. The innocents among us will continue to think this new limit will offer us added protection against people who would do us harm.

On the other hand, this bill won't really change the big picture. While it keeps the government out of our metaphorical bedroom, it does nothing to deter identity thieves or unscrupulous competitors.

So the rules haven't changed. Law or not, you don't want to send confidential material over the Internet; any more than you would spill a really important secret on the telephone.

If you have questions or suggestions for Charles Bermant, you can contact him by e-mail at cbermant@seattletimes.com. Type Inbox in the subject field. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

E-mail this article

Print this article

Search archive

More business & technology headlines...