The Electronic Frontier Foundation immediately attacked the decision to dismiss the criminal charge against a bookseller as "eviscerating" on-line privacy.
Bradford Councilman was vice-president of Interloc, a seller of rare and used books. His company provided an e-mail service to certain book dealer customers. However, Councilman had configured the mail processing software so that all incoming e-mail sent to dealers from Interloc's biggest competitor, Amazon.com, was copied and sent to Councilman's mailbox as well as to the intended recipient's.
The US Wiretap Act prohibits unauthorised interceptions of communications. The main issue for the court was whether there was such an intercept in this case.
Judge Juan Torruella wrote:
"The Wiretap Act's purpose was, and continues to be, to protect the privacy of communications. We believe that the language of the statute makes clear that Congress meant to give lesser protection to electronic communications than wire and oral communications."
He continued
"Moreover, at this juncture, much of the protection may have been eviscerated by the realities of modern technology. We observe, as most courts have, that the language may be out of step with the technological realities of computer crimes."
Torruella concluded that there was no breach of the Act.
Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Kevin Bankston commented:
"By interpreting the Wiretap Act's privacy protections very narrowly, this court has effectively given internet communications providers free rein to invade the privacy of their users for any reason and at any time."
The Center for Democracy and Technology agreed, adding in a statement that the decision "exposes the inadequacy of current law against ISPs' use of their customers' e-mail for their own business purposes and without notice or consent."