Recent Decision Discusses Accessing Someone Else's Email
The South Carolina Court of Appeals issued a decision last week which has some impact on Family Court cases. In Jennings v. Jennings, the wife told parties' daughter-in-law that the husband was having an affair. The daughter-in-law then accessed the husband's Yahoo email account, printed emails between the husband and his girlfriend, and gave copies to the wife, her attorney, and her private investigator.
The husband responded by filing a civil suit against the wife, the daughter-in-law, and the private investigator in Circuit Court, alleging invasion of privacy, conspiracy to intercept and disseminate private electronic communications, and violations of a number of statutes (including the South Carolina Homeland Security Act, South Carolina Computer Crime Act, Title I of the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Stored Communications Act (SCA).
The Circuit Court dismissed the husband's case, holding that the Yahoo e-mails were not stored by an "electronic communication service" (ECS) and were not stored "for purposes of backup protection". The Court of Appeals found that the lower court had erred in concluding Yahoo was not an ECS, and it remanded the case for further proceedings. In its decision, the Court discussed such nuances as:
- Whether it matters if the emails were accessed from the husband's hard drive or directly from Yahoo's system;
- Was Yahoo acting as a "remote computing service" (RCS) rather than an "electronic communication service" (ECS);
- Were the emails being stored "for purposes of backup protection"?
- Does the Stored Communications Act (SCA) apply to emails in a "post-transmission" state?
The analysis of these questions and the issues in this case is very helpful when analyzing these types of issues. You can read the full text of Jennings v. Jennings by clicking here.
Have not read the full text, but the 'fact' that the daughter-n-law accessed the plaintiff's email account without permission should play a factor? The article does not appear to indicate that they had shared access to the account.
I didn't read the full text either, but I can't believe they threw out the husband's case, by saying his Yahoo email wasn't "electronic communication"...
If that isn't electronic comm., what is?