| IANAL but the Court seems to have granted Google's motion to dismiss only for claims under CIPA Section 632 while denying it for all the other sections. > the Court hereby GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss with
leave to amend with respect to Plaintiffs’ CIPA section 632 claims This is Section 632: > Section 632 prohibits unauthorized electronic eavesdropping on confidential conversations. To state a claim under section 632, a plaintiff must allege an electronic recording of or eavesdropping on a confidential communication, and that not all parties consented to the
eavesdropping. However, the Court has not granted Google's motion to dismiss claims related to other sections: > The Court DENIES Google’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to all other claims. So one of the sections that still stands is Section 631: > Section 631 prohibits wiretapping or “any other unauthorized connection” with a “wire,
line, cable, or instrument.” The California Supreme Court has held that section 631 protects against three distinct types of harms: “intentional wiretapping, willfully
attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication in transit over a wire, and
attempting to use or communicate information obtained as a result of engaging in either of the
previous two activities.” Which probably explains the title. I still don't agree with the title though. |
> and that not all parties consented to the eavesdropping.
Are they indicating that when someone sends an e-mail to a Gmail account that they are implicitly consenting to the 'eavesdropping'?
As another poster pointed-out on HN a few weeks ago, sometimes it's not even clear if a domain is using Gmail. One would have to check the MX RRs first, before making a decision on sending.
Sounds like a useful postfix plug-in, actually...