[10] The 31 organizations signed a letter calling upon Google to be more transparent about its information handling practices regarding data retention and sharing within its business units.
They voiced concerns about Google’s plan to scan the text of all incoming messages with the information to be used for ad placement.
There are various software and email-client plugins that allow users to encrypt the message using the recipient's public key before sending it.
[16] OpenPGP provides a way for the end users to encrypt the email without any support from the server and be sure that only the intended recipient can read it.
However, this method infamously failed to protect the privacy of the participants in the Petraeus scandal; after coming under investigation for unrelated activities, communication between the parties was accessed by the FBI.
There are also server-based solutions, that automatically remove metadata from outgoing email messages at the organization network gateway.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[T]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” This Amendment guarantees the privacy, dignity, and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the government or those acting at their direction.
Factors the Court considered included (i) notice to employees, (ii) exclusive possession by an employee of keys to a desk or file cabinet, (iii) the government's need for access to documents, and (iv) the government's need to protect records and property.
[22] A California appellate court then held that the state's right of privacy applied to both public and private sector interests.
[23] Further, in Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., the California Court of Appeals reaffirmed this view and held that an employer may not invade the privacy of its employees absent a "compelling interest".
However, if the emails are stored on a user's personal computer instead of a server, then that would require the police to obtain a warrant first to seize the contents.
[citation needed] According to a 2005 survey by the American Management Association, about 55% of US employers monitor and read their employees' email.
A plaintiff can argue that the wiretapping statutes reflect the general intent of the legislature to protect the privacy of all communications that travel across the telephone line (including emails).
[clarification needed] California Penal Code Section 631 prohibits wire-tapping without the consent of all parties involved, adding that a person may not "read or attempt to read, learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in tran- sit or passing over any such wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within the state.
"[40] The court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Section 631 did not apply since the legislation did not specifically refer to email communication.
Most employers make employees sign an agreement that grants the right to monitor their email and computer usage.
For example, one court held that emails used in a business context are simply a part of the office environment, the same as a fax or copy machine, in which one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
[45] Beyond the lack of privacy for employee email in a work setting, there is the concern that a company's proprietary information, patents, and documents could be leaked, intentionally or unintentionally.
This concern is seen in for-profit businesses, non-profit firms, government agencies, and other sorts of start-ups and community organizations.
Firms usually ask employees or interns to not send work-related material to personal emails or through social media accounts, for example.
Even within the firm's email network and circle of connections, important information could still be leaked or stolen by competitors.
[47] Due to the nature of their job, courts are typically unwilling to find that government employees had a reasonable right to privacy in the first place.
Because emails are stored locally, at the ISP, and on the receiving end, there are multiple points at which security breakers or law enforcement can gain access to them.
These agreements reduce any expectation of privacy, and often include terms that grant the ISP the right to monitor the network traffic or turn over records at the request of a government agency.
[44] Mental healthcare professionals frequently use email for scheduling appointments and delivering treatments, offering benefits such as permanence and spontaneity compared to oral conversations.
Providers have less control over third-party email systems, increasing the likelihood of confidentiality breaches through human error, malicious acts, or phishing attacks.
[48] From the documents leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, it became well known that various governments have been running programs to tap all kinds of communication at massive scales, including email.
A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations alleges that Verizon illegally gave the US government unrestricted access to its entire Internet traffic without a warrant and that AT&T had a similar arrangement with the National Security Agency.
[50] While the FBI and NSA maintain that all their activities were and are legal, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) granting AT&T and Verizon immunity from prosecution.
The "Hey" email service, contacted by BBC News, estimated that it blocked spy pixels in about 600,000 out of 1,000,000 messages per day.