×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NJ Supreme Court Rules For Internet Privacy

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the now-let's-keep-isp-and-bank-records-private-too dept.

Privacy 84

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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

84 comments

Precedence in US Vs Forrester (3, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#23156878)

I'm not a lawyer but I thought precedence was set for this in US Vs Forrester [arstechnica.com] where a $10 million drug operation had their e-mail, phone and IP address records obtained from their ISP without a warrant. They were guilty but not until the court case.

This happened just last year. How are they going to reconcile these two rulings?

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (4, Informative)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 5 years ago | (#23156932)

Right now they are two different things. US vs Forrester was a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court and this recent ruling was the NJ State Supreme Court. If they come into conflict it will have to go to the US Supreme Court. Incidentally, the 9th Circuit is one of the most overturned appeals courts in recent years.

I am guessing this issue will one day wind up before the US Supreme Court. We know that Congress won't address the issue, so it will probably be left to the lawyers in black robes.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (2, Interesting)

andb52 (854780) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157094)

Even if there is an apparent conflict between the two rulings, such a contradiction will not necessarily be referred to the US Supreme Court. Remember, the New Jersey ruling was under the New Jersey Constitution, which provides far more rights to citizens than the United States Constitution. As such, even if there is not federal right to privacy with one's ISP, there still could be a right to privacy within the state of New Jersey.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (2, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157118)

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:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (3, Interesting)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157210)

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.

Not really, State & Federal courts really move in different circles. The Feds will get info without the warrant & none of the proceeds will be usable for any ancillary state charges, but it won't affect the federal case.

The interesting thing to me is that the court ruled that the problem was with the type of seupona used. Per the article, the cops went & got one from a judge, but the court ruled that they needed to go to a grand jury instead. That seems a bit odd to me, it was my understanding that the GJ was usually brought in after most of the investigation was done, not at the beginning.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (3, Interesting)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 5 years ago | (#23158746)

"The Feds will try to get information without a warrant and the conflict will ensue."

I've been waiting to see this type of conflict. I'm surprised that it would happen in New Jersey, but many states have their own Constitutions which define the Rights of their citizens even more broadly than what's in the U.S. Constitution. 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.

It would be great if New Jersey had some guts and empowered the NJ State Police to arrest Federal agents for the crime of illegally spying on NJ residents.

State and Federal citizen's rights (3, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#23159220)

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 (2, Insightful)

Ioldanach (88584) | more than 5 years ago | (#23159256)

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:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (1)

Ozric (30691) | more than 5 years ago | (#23162000)

You mean States Rights, as in kick your ass back to the Civil War, States Rights ?

Just Checking

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (1)

Ioldanach (88584) | more than 5 years ago | (#23162114)

Yes, I'm referring to States Rights. Though I don't know what the Civil War has to do with that, exactly. That war was largely fought over interstate trade, intrastate trade and ostensibly slavery, one of which was already enshrined in constitutional law, one was handled with an amendment so that the states could still retain those States Rights, and one was sort of ignored and slowly brought under the purview of interstate trade for most cases, where it doesn't belong.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (1)

Ozric (30691) | more than 5 years ago | (#23162410)

The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This amendment was the basis of the doctrine of states' rights that became the rallying cry of the Southern states.

I see it worked out well for them.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (1)

Ioldanach (88584) | more than 5 years ago | (#23162560)

It didn't work out well for them in part because some of the rights they wanted were not theirs to take (interstate commerce) or ended up later as the items enshrined in the constitution (prohibition on slavery). It doesn't mean the concept of States Rights itself is a bad one.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157284)

While the 9th circuit gets frequently overturned, it's usually for it's "liberal" leaning. Since this case supported the federal prosecutor, and mainly decided that there was no constitutional case to begin with, I doubt the case has much to fear from the current supreme court, even if it accepts it for review.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (4, Informative)

Ardeaem (625311) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157912)

Incidentally, the 9th Circuit is one of the most overturned appeals courts in recent years.
God, this meme needs to die. The 9th circuit also has a very highest number of cases. When you look at the numbers as proportions, the 9th Circuit isn't out of line.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#23162486)

Not only is it not out of line, they actually have one of the lowest overturn percentages. But truth has never stopped the right from making a talking point- see also WMDs, liberal media, etc.

Re:Precedent in US Vs Forrester (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#23159316)

Would any lawyers care to opine about whether United States vs. Miller applies here?

In that case (425 U.S. 435, 442 (1976)) the Supreme Court ruled that phone records weren't private because they were information the customer voluntarily disclosed to the phone company that the phone company employees had routine access to.

Don't flame me, I didn't say it was _right_.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester...wrong (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 5 years ago | (#23156964)

The difference here is that this is State court, not Federal court. This ruling will have no effect on any Federal case made in or against citizens of New Jersey. It does have precedence over any State or Municipal actions made in New Jersey.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23157134)

Basically its a question of jurisdiction. If the Fed's go after you, then their rules apply. If the state of New Jersey goes after you, then their rules apply.

States are allowed to provide more protection than required under the federal constitution. Generally, the Supreme Court of the United States has no authority over a State Supreme Court interpreting that State's constitution.

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23163294)

Wikipedia to the rescue!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedent#Types_of_precedent

State court does not have to follow Federal Court Rulings - except for interpretations of federal law. A decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has absolutely no binding effect on the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Check out the definitions of Binding and Persuasive Precedent.

have a nice day!

Sure, privacy is nice (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#23156880)

But those poor folks still have to live in New Jersey.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1, Interesting)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#23156988)

haha Im sure this is going to be modded funny....

For your information we actually LIKE living in Jersey. I couldn't imagine living anywhere else in this country. Maybe if you people actually drove a few miles AWAY from the turnpike and parkway, and NYC in general and actually saw the rest of our state, you would see why we all think its great.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#23156998)

Hey, you're from Jersey? I'm from Jersey too! What exit?

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

rockout (1039072) | more than 5 years ago | (#23161790)

Not surprised that this decades-old joke was modded funny, but what's really interesting is that if you actually do meet someone from NJ and they're from a tiny town that you've never heard of (we have hundreds of those), asking "what exit" really is a great reference system between NJ-ians.

We have two major highways that run north-south, and I'd guess at least 80% of our population lives within 20 miles of one of them. Telling someone which exit you're near just gives them an idea of where your hometown is very quickly and fairly accurately.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23168716)

Two major North-South highways? Are we still trying to keep 295 a secret? For southern Jersey folks, the Turnpike's for tourists and suckers. Unless you're heading north of Princeton, there's no reason to touch that cop-infested pothole fantasy road.

Still though, if you took away the areas near NYC, you'd have a hard time finding another state in the nation with a road system as good as New Jersey's.

Unfortunately, the roads within the Elizabeth-Paterson-Weehawken area resemble some sort of Escherian Triangle of Hell wherein you can see your destination literally right across the street, but must wander aimlessly for 30 minutes or more before stumbling quite accidentally across the series of correct access roads which will allow you to arrive there. Street names and route numbers seem paradoxically interwoven in some impossible fabric of pain, while unnamed and unmarked (and in many cases, seemingly unpaved) access roads vere wildly in every direction while menacing you with signs which threaten to take you to every place but the one you want, often with tolls along the way for your troubles.

Anyone who would like an example of this, I invite you to plot a course from the Meadowlands Sports Complex in East Rutherford, NJ to the Mill Creek Mall in Secaucus, NJ. I suggest you get help from Commander Data. Being a mere two miles apart, one can well imagine this being an easy task, but looking at the final result, one can't help but wonder if the road system in that area was an attempt at humor.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23157052)

Lived in New Jersey for a couple years, and I've been to 38 states and 22 countries. Aside from South Korea, New Jersey is right there at the top of my list of placed that sucked to live.

1. The cost of living is horrendously more expensive in NJ than elsewhere.

2. In fact, everything in general is more expensive.

3. Traffic laws...no left turns? I mean, c'mon. No left turns. You have to take a jughandle to make a left.

4. I don't like the cold anyway, and now that I live in Florida, am much happier.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157706)

It's expensive because we're in the metropolitan areas of both NYC and Philadelphia. There are some cheaper parts of NJ, but those tend to be rural areas that are geographically further from the cities.

I find it a great place to live, myself.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#23158366)

Also remember everything is proportional. I make nearly 50,000 doing general IT (repair computers, install software, some light networking) work that someone with a similar job elsewhere would be only making 30,000-35,000.

While the cost of living is higher, your income tends to likewise be higher. One of the biggest mistakes two of my friends made was they left NJ to go to other states because they saw it to be cheaper, but made almost 10,000 less in salary once they got there and are struggling just as hard as they where in NJ but without the support system of family and friends.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

rockout (1039072) | more than 5 years ago | (#23161846)

Agreed. I moved to NJ, am doing pretty much the same job that I used to do for $14/hr, and now as a freelancer make over $100K a year.

The higher cost of living, compared to my increase in income, becomes laughable at that point. Of course, YMMV, but living near NY provides someone with skills all kinds of opportunity to both make lots of money and find a job you actually enjoy doing. You can even easily find work that doesn't involve a 9-to-5 shift, at which point the horrible rush-hour traffic becomes someone else's problem as well.

I can't think of a state that I'd rather live in, and I've lived in 5 and visited about 30.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

corcoranp (892008) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157478)

Maybe if you people actually drove a few miles AWAY from the turnpike and parkway, and NYC ..
A few miles away? You mean Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Atlantic? JustKidding Exit 63! Baby!

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157510)

>>>"Maybe if you people actually drove a few miles AWAY from the turnpike and parkway, and NYC in general and actually saw the rest of our state, you would see why we all think its great."

The southern part of New Jersey (low population) is nice. Ditto the portion bordering the Pennsylvania line. But the rest of it? Pass.

Now Maryland... there's a nice state.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (2, Informative)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#23158466)

Yet what you described is a area 3 times the size of Maryland. As long as your outside of Union, Middlesex, Hudson and Essex counties to the east, and the VERY edge of the Delaware river counties in the west (like maybe 4-5 miles across the edge), you would hardly SEE a city, heck maybe even a town since most of the interior of NJ is farmland.

Like I said, 99% of the people who make Jersey jokes have never even seen NJ for the most part. Except for a small area, NJ is very underpopulated. It just so happens the area that is, happens to be overpopulated.

As for Maryland though, I would take Newark ANY DAY over Baltimore. That city is just a scary place to drive through.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#23161890)

You don't drive through Baltimore. You visit the Inner Harbor, enjoy a few drinks at Fells Point, and then leave. Basically, you stay close to the water where it's safe & well-policed. Ditto D.C.

And, New Jersey is not three times larger than Maryland. It takes about 3 hours to drive across Jersey (northward).... it takes almost 5 hours to drive from Maryland's shoreline to the western mountains. So I'd say Maryland has greater breadth, and about the same area as NJ.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#23162678)

Wow not only are you right, but your wrong in area, Maryland is actually LARGER area wise (12,407 to a little over 7000) than NJ. Im not sure if that counts landmass though.

Your right though about Baltimore. I have been all over Newark and except for a few spots near Irvington never felt terribly scared (even have worked in their schools) But Baltimore proper SCARES me.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#23169706)

Try visiting the shabby motels in Teterboro New Jersey.

They have bars on their windows and rent their rooms by the hour.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#23173890)

Thats nothing, seriously. You can go to Philly, New York, Newark, LA anywhere and find motels like that. And I dont know a motel who DOESNT rent by the hour for prostitutes and people sneaking around their spouses.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

greginnj (891863) | more than 5 years ago | (#23160664)

Ssshhh, don't tell them!

... none of the NYC snobs know about the pine barrens or the sourlands or the turkey farms, orchards, Amish markets, etc... I'm a lot closer to a tractor dealership than I am to a refinery.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#23161488)

I hear New Jerseyians don't have to pump their own gas.

That must be sweet.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (1)

rockout (1039072) | more than 5 years ago | (#23161880)

That's true, and yet we still have one of the lowest average prices for gas in the country.

Sometimes I still get out and pump my own, though, just because it's quicker and I'm used to doing it, having lived in other states.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23157158)

Well, they do say true privacy can only happen when living in a den in the middle of nowhere...

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23157328)

That is why New Yorkers are upset. The light at the end of the tunnel is New Jersey.

Re:Sure, privacy is nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23160096)

If ya'll hate it so much, then get off our beaches! Go swim in the Hudson or someting. :)

if only... (1)

archkittens (1272770) | more than 5 years ago | (#23156884)

now lets get the national supreme court to agree, then we'll be getting somewhere!

Re:if only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23156962)

now lets get the national supreme court to agree, then we'll be getting somewhere!

      Now let's get the executive branch to not break the law, then we'll be getting somewhere.

Re:if only... (1)

archkittens (1272770) | more than 5 years ago | (#23158506)

could be too much to hope for. i know some pretty honest judges (they tell me when they're saying F*** you to the law, at least), but no honest executive branch types.

great news for thieves (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23156906)

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!

Re:great news for thieves (2, Insightful)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 5 years ago | (#23156978)

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?

Re:great news for thieves (2, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157144)

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:great news for thieves (1)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157574)

Your numbers of warrants approved assume that any time a member of law enforcement wants ISP records or some such thing, they ask for a warrant. In reality, they aren't going to do so if they have absolutely no evidence other than the guys Arab-sounding name or something. If no warrant is required, then why not just listen to everyone? Nothing is stopping them.

Re:great news for thieves (3, Interesting)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#23158140)

Yeah, they're all in it together for the money.

Or maybe money (or lack thereof) is the reason they can't be bothered investigating every singe one of the 14,000 warrants. Maybe even only about 5 (or 10 or 15) were actually bad warrants, and the rest were perfectly legal and perfectly justifiable.

So, we have two possibilities: a) the government is cohesive, efficient, greedy, corrupt, ruthless, or b) the government is slow, inefficient, under-funded (at least, if you want every warrant triple checked by every layer of authority), and lazy.

I'm betting on b), based on previous encounters with governments and their employees. The separation of powers would also explain the inefficiency, which would in turn explain the low warrant rejection rate. Or I could be wrong, and it could be a) the evil plutocrats wanting quick arrests for some god-knows reason.

Re:great news for thieves (1)

hansraj (458504) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157000)

Sure! like everyone can deal drugs and hide dead bodies in their houses without the fear of getting caught, just because the police can not search your house without a warrant.

Re:great news for thieves (1)

Koohoolinn (721622) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157006)

From what I understand law enforcement can still get the needed information from your ISP. They just have to have a warrant first.

Re:great news for thieves (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#23160234)

Law enforcement may be able to, but there is this little problem. Who do they get a subpoena for and how much proof do they need ahead of time? We are in the process of disassociating the idea that an IP address can be tied to an account holder. This pretty much means that an IP address is meaningless. You aren't going to get a subpoena for "John Doe a.k.a. 192.168.1.1". And it is highly unlikely that a grand jury is going to pass on a subpoena because someone is suspected have having used a given IP address.

Rulings like this also pretty much mean that any social or technical mischief caused on the Internet is absolutely protected. Sure, you know that 24.1.1.47 logged into your server, deleted files and turned on an FTP server for hosting porn videos. But, unless the person behind this admits to it in a chat room your ability to get them to stop is zero. Will law enforcement help? No, there isn't enough monetary damage. When you get tired of cleaning up after someone the fourth or fifth time you will discover there is nothing that you can do. Someone found an appealing target and they can hammer you into submission. About your best hope is to offer to pay them to stop - but what if they aren't interested in the money and just want to have fun?

Today, there are some ISPs that will take action against a customer that is committing mayhem on the Internet. But that number is getting smaller and smaller all the time.

Re:great news for thieves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23157270)

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!
Straw man arguments are lies.

EULA (1, Insightful)

techpawn (969834) | more than 5 years ago | (#23156986)

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:EULA (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157194)

It still doesn't hold water if it is in a police investigation, or illegal for that matter. They can make you sign something that says they have the right to kill you if you are late on 2 or more payments but that doesn't circumvent the law.

Re:EULA (3, Insightful)

ArwynH (883499) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157234)

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.

They are happy to sell your data (1)

stavros-59 (1102263) | more than 5 years ago | (#23165878)

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.


How would this judgement affect the Deep Packet Inspection methods used by Contextual based advertising activity by the likes of Phorm and Nebuad?

Your data is being sold to a third party.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/04/208225 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/18/2033202 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/23/1233212 [slashdot.org]

Re:EULA (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157286)

A contract is invalid if it violates the law.

Re:EULA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23158392)

A contract is invalid if it violates the law.
I have yet to see a law making it illegal for me to give up my privacy.

Re:EULA (2, Insightful)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157564)

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.

Re:EULA (2, Insightful)

Dusty00 (1106595) | more than 5 years ago | (#23160304)

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.

Next time they'll get the correct warrant.. (1)

Tominva1045 (587712) | more than 5 years ago | (#23156996)

So next time they'll get the correct warrant-- and STILL toss her butt in jail. I can live with that. As a creepy aside, I believe I went to high school with this chick.

This won't just effect people from NJ (2, Interesting)

ConfrontationalGrayh (1199233) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157050)

AT&T's main NOC is in NJ. This is the NOC that handles most of their T1 traffic and troubles. They also have a smaller one in Kentucky, but the main one is in New Jersey.

even after being warned by congolisa.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23157064)

mr. carter opts to promote peace. what a ballsy guy? let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

obvious really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23157254)

Of course, we've all known this made sense from the beginning. Was anyone really waiting for confirmation from the powers that be?

Grand jury is now required (2, Informative)

McCarr (89270) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157342)

Comcast at least, won't now release subscriber information without a subpoena.This ruling requires that a grand jury must issue the subpoena not a municipal court. This raises the barrier quite a bit. The ruling is at:http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A-105-06%20State%20v%20Shirley%20Reid.pdf

Re:Grand jury is now required (1)

Catmoves (1136147) | more than 5 years ago | (#23162068)

Comcast is a joke as far as security is concerned. Caught with their fingers in the pie too many times to be trusted anymore. Trusting them with anything seems to mean you are far too naive to be using the internet.

They have banks in New Jersey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23157362)

Technology knows no bounds I tell you.

Also interesting for what the court did *not* do (3, Informative)

BendingSpoons (997813) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157916)

At least from my perspective. New Jersey courts are particularly active in holding that our State Constitution offers more protection than the federal constitution. (See State v. Nyhammer, 396 NJ Super 72, for a typically bizarre reading of the Fifth Amendment.*)

In this case, an appellate court had previously held that the New Jersey state constitution grants a broad-based right to "informational privacy." Some state constitutions explicitly grant a right to privacy; NJ doesn't, but the Court reads our constitution as having one anyway. And then the appellate court expanded this judicially-granted right to include "informational privacy." The NJ Supreme Court rejected this expansion, although they said that they might change their minds if technology progresses to the point where IP addresses are more freely available.

All in all, I'm happy they ditched the Appellate Division's interpretation. I liked the idea of informational privacy, but I didn't like it coming through the courts.

*In that case, police officers read Nyhammer his Miranda rights. Nyhammer waived his rights, signed the Miranda card, and confessed to molesting an 11-year old girl. The appellate court held that Nyhammer's fifth amendment rights were violated; although he waived his rights, he didn't know at the time that he was a suspect. Therefore, his waiver wasn't really knowing and voluntary, and the court overturned his conviction. Talk about an expansive reading of a right against self-incrimination.

Guilty but let go (4, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#23157936)

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.

Re:Guilty but let go (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#23159992)

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.
What you're talking about is the tension between the 'crime control' model and the 'due process' model.

The names are fairly self explanatory, but here is what CliffsNotes has to say [cliffsnotes.com].

Cliffs Notes claims Crime Control is a 'conservative' viewpoint and Due Process is a 'liberal' one, but keep in mind that historically speaking, Crime Control was pretty much the order of the day until very recently.

Re:Guilty but let go (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#23160124)

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.

The way I look at it, as long as my rights are respected, all I have to do to stay out of jail is obey the law. If they're not respected, who knows.

Meanwhile, sometimes strict enforcement of rights lets a criminal go free. When that happens, they will either decide that was too close and stop breaking the law (problem solved) or they'll re-offend and get jailed.

Re:Guilty but let go (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#23168072)

The way I look at it, as long as my rights are respected, all I have to do to stay out of jail is obey the law.

Let's hope you are not on the "terrorist watch list" by accident. Let's hope your house's address is not a transposition of some criminals. Lets hope you understand law well enough to know what is and what is not illegal.

Are you a sexually active heterosexual male? Do you know in how many or which states that fellatio is illegal?

Re:Guilty but let go (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#23173744)

The way I look at it, as long as my rights are respected, all I have to do to stay out of jail is obey the law. Let's hope you are not on the "terrorist watch list" by accident. Let's hope your house's address is not a transposition of some criminals. Lets hope you understand law well enough to know what is and what is not illegal. Are you a sexually active heterosexual male? Do you know in how many or which states that fellatio is illegal?

I didn't say my rights are respected here and now. Those rights include a right to a code of law that I can understand fully without an extraordinary effort. Part of that implies no laws against things that society as a whole doesn't see as wrong. Another part is no laws against consentual activities that don't harm others significantly. That also means law enforcement should make every effort to avoid errors and go through due process should an imposition (such as a search) be necesary. Once that is done, the search must be performed respectfully and should they find nothing (including if they THINK they found something but I am later found not guilty) full apologies and reparations should be forthcoming. By that, I mean they should do everything in their power to make it as if I was never a suspect.

I fully realize that such a state of affairs would make law enforcement harder and that criminals would get away with it more often. It would also likely foster a much greater respect for the law and it's enforcement which would help to balance things out. Part of the current difficulty in law enforcement is that entire segments (growing daily) of the population assume the police are up to no good (or at least that no good can come of their activities) and are likely enforcing laws that shouldn't exist in the first place. From what I've seen, the assumption is not without basis.

I suspect that part of the "CSI effect" is that people believe law enforcement SHOULD go to those lengths to be sure that they're right and should be at least that willing to consider other possabilities before formally accusing people.

Your comments reveal why I question the current respect for my rights in the U.S.

Blackstone's formulation (1)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 5 years ago | (#23165584)

"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Our liberties and freedoms were secured by the blood of our forefathers for a reason. There is no reason "important enough" to forsake those liberties and freedoms.

-ted

What about federal interference. (2, Interesting)

moxley (895517) | more than 5 years ago | (#23158134)

This is great until the Feds come in and unconstitutionally trump that like they do whenever they wis to step all over state law.

summary is wrong. i must be new here. (1)

arbitraryaardvark (845916) | more than 5 years ago | (#23159534)

The court decided that the ISP CAN, or perhaps I mean must, give out the information without a warrant. All that is needed is a subpoena.
Orin Kerr discusses and links to the case at volokh.com, which isn't coming up for me right now.
Also, most of the commenters seem to have missed that this is a case about the new jersey constitution, not about the 4th amendment.

Above post is informative and insightful.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...