Jason C. Gavejian writes:
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama recently held in Bruce v. McDonald that the “mere access” of an e-mail account and subsequent printing/possession of e-mails from the same account did not constitute an “interception” in violation of the federal Wiretap Act.
Under the Wiretap Act, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, criminal and civil liability is imposed on any person who intentionally intercepts any electronic communication. The Wiretap Act also imposes liability on any person who intentionally discloses,” or “intentionally uses, the contents of an electronic communication “knowing or having reason to know” the communication was intercepted in violation the Wiretap Act. Thus, “interception” is a necessary element for each type of violation.
Read more on Workplace Privacy Data Management & Security Report.