and that not all parties consented to the eavesdropping.
Are they indicating that when someone sends an e-mail to a Gmail account that they are implicitly consenting to the 'eavesdropping'?
As another poster pointed-out on HN a few weeks ago, sometimes it's not even clear if a domain is using Gmail. One would have to check the MX RRs first, before making a decision on sending.
Are they indicating that when someone sends an e-mail to a Gmail account that they are implicitly consenting to the 'eavesdropping'?
No, not at all.
There are, per the order, three requirements identified for a 632 violation: "(1) an electronic recording of or eavesdropping on (2) a 'confidential communication' (3) to which all parties did not consent."
The order finds the plaintiffs' case deficient on this point because: "Plaintiffs have not established that the
communications at issue are confidential pursuant to section 632."
Comments
Interesting, re: Section 632
Are they indicating that when someone sends an e-mail to a Gmail account that they are implicitly consenting to the 'eavesdropping'?
As another poster pointed-out on HN a few weeks ago, sometimes it's not even clear if a domain is using Gmail. One would have to check the MX RRs first, before making a decision on sending.
Sounds like a useful postfix plug-in, actually...
No, not at all.
There are, per the order, three requirements identified for a 632 violation: "(1) an electronic recording of or eavesdropping on (2) a 'confidential communication' (3) to which all parties did not consent."
The order finds the plaintiffs' case deficient on this point because: "Plaintiffs have not established that the communications at issue are confidential pursuant to section 632."