RSSNJ court rules ISP info confidential without subpoena
By Ed Oswald | Published April 22, 2008, 11:22 AM
Personal information on the state's citizens cannot be released without a court order, the state Supreme Court ruled on Monday.
New Jersey's constitution provides greater protection on unreasonable searches and seizures than the US Constitution does. Anyone looking for the data, including law enforcement, needs to obtain a subpoena.
The unanimous ruling came as part of a Cape May County woman's case who retaliated against her boss in 2004 by changing the passwords to a supplier's Web site following an argument.
Police then obtained her identity through records with her internet provider, Comcast. While a subpoena was obtained in municipal court, higher courts said it could not be enforced unless issued by a grand jury due to an indictable offense. The Supreme Court agreed.
The woman was charged with theft, however unless the prosecutors can prove their case without the information, the charges will be dropped. This does not prevent the prosecutors from attempting to obtain the information again under the new ruling.
Cape May County Prosecutor Robert Taylor vowed to both seek a grand jury subpoena and new indictment.
Supporters of the woman, including the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, applauded the court's move and said it was one of the first to ensure tighter privacy when dealing with personal information.
Others said the case was indicative of a broader trend toward protecting ISP data which is occurring across the US, although varying by degrees.
Actually, neither Patriot act gives the DHS this authority. That is why we have a FAFSA (sp?) court to secretly approve anything the intelligence agencies want. The rules are clear. The Government must prove to the FAFSA court within 90 days the need. Now I'm not saying that this is just a Rubberstamp court but since it's inception (I believe 1979)it has turn down close to 0 requests. This is why the sh** hit the fan when it became public that the President and VP had authorized NSA overreaching authority and bypass the instrument in place to deal with this very issue.
Everyone have a nice evening and if the NSA is watching, This President and VP should be tried for Impeachment for lying to the Congress and Public not only about Iraq but other issues.
Score: 0
|Does this mean if someone hacks into NJ system they 1st have to get a subpoena?
Score: 0
|Did any of you read this summary? In order to get the subpoena you need a grand jury. What they did obtain in this case was a simple subpoena through a judge. A grand jury (13 common citizens) agreeing that the subpoena is necessary.
Read the article next time.
Score: 0
|Who the hell are you talking to?
The only comments in here are responses to a poster winging about the DHS, who even himself admitted a subpoena was needed, and ... you.
We got sidetracked by the DHS bit, but no-one claimed a subpoena wasn't necessary.
...did you bother to read the comments?
Score: 0
|I did say that actually.
I said that DHS doesn't need one, but the police do.
Score: 0
|Did you notice he didn't use the reply button? There's a reason for that.
Score: 0
|I did, did you notice the one beneath the poster you *meant* to reply to? ;)
Score: 0
|Ok great, information can't be released with out a subpoena. But do you know how easy it is in the post 9/11 era to get that subpoena? "We have reason to believe that IP address 129.x.x.101 is a terrorist..." -- Oh ok let me signed this order right away then... boom that's it. This isn't exactly a victory for privacy rights.
Score: 0
|If state prosecutors obtain a subpoena based on the assumption someone is a terrorist they have to show some type of cause to think that way. If they use it as a BS way to obtain said subpoena then it would be simple to have that reversed by showing there was no cause to think that way. At least that is how I see it...
Score: 0
|*LAUGHS*
You've been watching too much TV.
DHS *might* be able to get away with that. Local cops? Not a chance in hell.
Score: 0
|DHS CAN get away with it.
Local cops? not so much.
Score: 0
|Anyone *can* get away with anything, so that's not really saying much.
DHS still has oversight. Abuse is abuse and is treated as such.
Score: 0
|I suppose. I was implying that DHS could get data without a warrant.
I believe the Patriot Act I or II empowered them. I could be wrong on that though.
Score: 0
|They can, but doing so in the way posted by the OP would be considered an abuse and would be treated as such.
He's under the impression they're all John Wayne.
Score: 0
|