|
|
|
|
|
|
by anigbrowl
4469 days ago
|
|
|
Edit: I know you were talking more about legality than morality. However, as the physical mail scenario shows, there is already a legal precedent for an actor being prohibited by law from acting in a way that is analogous to what Microsoft has done; You don't enter into a contractual relationship with the USPS when you mail or receive a letter. When you sign up for a webmail account, you're doing so on the providing party's terms, and you can't really complain if said webmail provider chooses to enforce the contract that you signed up to. and ultimately, the law should follow moral considerations, so those are the more interesting questions anyway. Whose moral considerations would these be? |
|
|
I would argue that that's a historical accident and in any case subject to change, especially in places where the mail system has been deregulated to allow mail service by private companies. For example, in Germany such companies could potentially have terms similar to a contractual agreement (called AGB) that apply as soon as you post a letter.
The underlying point is really this: the current status quo (good protection for physical mail, no protection for electronic mail) is not something that makes sense if you start reasoning from first principles. It simply developed this way for historical reasons (mainly: webmail providers were created in much more lawyer-happy times, and the rules for physical mail developed over a longer time, during which respect for privacy was valued higher for whatever reason).
I believe that it is a fairly safe bet that, if the internet still exists 100 years from now, most places that will be considered civilized in that future will have laws to protect their citizens' privacy no matter what companies would like to write in their contracts.
Whose moral considerations would these be?
In a democratic society? Everybody's. Yes, a consensus needs to be found, blah blah. The fact that you even felt the need the ask this question is a bit disturbing.