The Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey said that
information about a person's use of the internet was so private
that police there cannot order ISPs to release surfing details of
suspects with a municipal court subpoena. They must receive a grand
jury subpoena, it said.
"The court holds that citizens have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in the subscriber information they provide to internet
service providers,'' said the Court's ruling. "Law enforcement
officials can obtain subscriber information by serving a grand jury
subpoena on an Internet service provider without notice to the
subscriber."
"Individuals need an ISP address in order to access the
internet," said Chief Justice Rabner in his ruling. "However, when
users surf the web from the privacy of their homes, they have
reason to expect that their actions are confidential. Many are
unaware that a numerical IP address can be captured by the websites
they visit. More sophisticated users understand that that unique
string of numbers, standing alone, reveals little if anything to
the outside world. Only an internet service provider can translate
an IP address into a user’s name."
The case involved Shirley Reid, who was accused of hacking into
her employer's computer system.
After Reid's ISP, Comcast, handed over details of her account,
including the IP address from which she accessed the internet, she
was found guilty of computer theft in connection with the hacking
incident.
Reid overturned that decision on appeal and at the Supreme Court
of New Jersey stage, arguing that the evidence should be
suppressed.
Reid's lawyers had argued that a person should be informed when
a subpoena is issued permitting the release of their
telecommunications subscription details so that they can oppose the
move. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, though, said that as long as
the subpoena is from a grand jury the information can be released
without the knowledge or consent of the user.
"Modern technology has raised a number of questions that are
intertwined in this case: to what extent can private individuals
'surf' the 'Web' anonymously? Do internet subscribers have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in their identity while accessing
internet websites? And under what circumstances may the State learn
the actual identity of internet users?" said Chief Justice Rabner
in his ruling.
"We decline to adopt a requirement that notice be provided to
account holders whose information is subpoenaed," he said. "For
obvious reasons, notice could impede and possibly defeat the grand
jury’s investigation. Particularly in the case of computers,
unscrupulous individuals aware of a subpoena could delete or damage
files on their home computer and thereby effectively shield them
from a legitimate investigation."
The Court said that although Reid was successful in having the
municipal warrant-obtained evidence suppressed, the police were not
barred from approaching Comcast again and obtaining the records
using an appropriate warrant.
