Yahoo! Not Liable for Disclosure of Email Information to Chinese Officials
A group of plaintiffs filed suit against Yahoo! and its Chinese subsidiary for disclosing the email information (identity) of a person who used an email address to engage in political/dissident activity in China. Tom O'Toole at the BNA TechLaw blog reports [link] that Judge Chesney (of the Northern District of California) dismissed the claims against Yahoo! and its subsidiary on the basis that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act does not apply extraterritorially. (Access a link to the order at TechLaw here [pdf].)
Among other arguments, plaintiffs tried to argue that since Yahoo! has servers all over the world, including in the United States, it doesn't necessarily make sense to reject the claims on the basis that the interception/disclosure occurred outside the United States. The court disagreed, noting that according to plaintiffs' own allegations, the "acquisitions and subsequent disclosures . . . were made 'locally.'" I'm not familiar with the case law here, but I was surprised the court didn't give this argument a bit more credence. I'm not familiar with the Alien Tort Claims statute either, but I'm surprised plaintiffs didn't bring an ATCA claim.
Yahoo! testified in front of Congress after taking heat over these types of disclosures, as reported by Wired here (2007).
Yahoo! testified in front of Congress after taking heat over these types of disclosures, as reported by Wired here (2007).
As a private company, doesn't Yahoo have the right to set their own rules and regulations about disclosures? It was just last month I was reading another post about Yahoo's EULA and all the things the user was agreeing to. It seems to me that by signing up for Yahoo service you agree that Yahoo will turn over what ever they have to any law enforcement agency that files the paper work. The language does not limit Yahoo to United States based law enforcement.
That language has been in place for many years.
While I see the problem with stifling free speech, I don't see the legal problem here.
Reply to this