Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Konop. v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.
Konop. v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case name	Robert C. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.
Argued	June 8 2000
Decided	August 23 2002
Citation	302 F.3d 868 (2002)
Holding
	Hawaiian Airlines could not be held liable for a violation of the federal Wiretap Act, but could be held liable under the Stored Communications Act.
Court membership
Judges sitting	Boochever, Paez, Reinhardt
Case opinions
Majority	Boochever
Dissent	Reinhardt

Last updated October 15, 2024

Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (2002) was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and overturned in part the ruling of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. An original, unanimous opinion of the Court of Appeals was filed on January 8, 2001 (236 F.3d 1035 (2001)), which overturned the District Court opinion in its entirety. The Department of Justice then sought to intervene in the case at the behest of the National Security Agency (NSA).

The NSA sought intervention by the Department of Justice when the NSA determined that the court's original opinion would potentially limit certain of the agency's monitoring and interception activities, and require court supervision of some signals monitoring which might be deemed "interceptions." The original opinion was withdrawn on August 28, 2001, and a new opinion was filed on August 23, 2002. The withdrawal was reportedly accomplished when the new two (2) judge majority was made to understand that the case would be taken to the Supreme Court unless changes favoring the NSA position were incorporated into the opinion.

In the revised (2002) opinion, which changed the definition of the word "intercept," the court held that the defendant, Hawaiian Airlines, could not be held liable for violation of the federal Wiretap Act when it gained access to the plaintiff's website because the contents of the plaintiff's website were in storage, and thus could not be intercepted under the meaning of the Wiretap Act. This change created a new opportunity for communications to be intercepted by using the inherent 'latency' characteristics of electronic communications relayed through electronic circuitry. The court held, however, that Konop had a potential remedy under the Stored Communications Act, as well as for interference in violation of the Railway Labor Act, and remanded the case back to the District Court.

Facts

Robert Konop, an employee of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., created and maintained a website where he posted content that was critical of his employer, its officers, and the incumbent union. Konop, through his website, encouraged Hawaiian Airlines employees to consider a different union for representation because the current union supported certain labor concessions that Konop opposed. Konop created a secure website that required visitors to log in using their names and then by creating a password. He created a specific list, composed mostly of Hawaiian Airlines pilots and other employees, who could access the website. Only those people who were eligible to see the website could log on. Once a user logged on, he or she had to accept the site's Terms and Conditions, which prohibited any Hawaiian Airlines management from seeing the site, and prohibited any disclosure of the site's contents to anyone else. This was a process which was later incorporated into the Digital Milennium Copyright Act as a protection for access-limited websites or other access-limited forms of electronic communications.

Two pilots, however, gave Hawaiian Airlines' vice president, James Davis, permission to use their names to access the site. Davis presumably typed in the pilots' names, created passwords, then clicked "submit" to accept the site's terms and conditions. Records show that Davis logged in nearly thirty times under both pilots' names, each time falsely acknowledging Davis' agreement to the Terms and Conditions of Use for Konop's website.

Konop brought suit on his own against Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., alleging that it viewed his secure website without permission, disclosed contents of the site, and violated the federal Wiretap Act, among other claims. Konop was opposed in his case, both in the District Court and on appeal, by the Los Angeles office of the prestigious law firm Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, a firm with extensive government connections.

Law

In 1986, the United States Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which was intended to afford privacy protection to electronic communications.^[1] The Konop court mainly examined Title I of the ECPA, the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§s 2510–2522 (2000), along with Title II, the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §§s 2701–2711 (2000).

Discussion

The Konop court noted that these two statutes combined to form a "complex, often convoluted, area of the law."^[2] The difficulty rests, the court noted, in the fact that the ECPA was written before the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web.

The Wiretap Act

The Wiretap Act makes it an offense to "intentionally intercept… any wire, oral, or electronic communication."^[3] Thus, the question became whether Konop's website was an "electronic communication," and if so, whether Davis "intercepted" that communication.

An "electronic communication" is "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system.^[4]

The court described the process of viewing a website to determine whether the Konop's website was an electronic communication. It said that website owners like Konop transmit electronic documents to servers. When a user wishes to see that document, it requests that he server send a copy of that document to the user's computer. The server then transfers the information from that document, but not the document itself, to the user's computer for the user to view. The court held that Konop's website clearly fits the definition of an "electronic communication."

The court then examined what it meant to "intercept" an electronic document. An interception, under the Wiretap Act, is defined as "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device."^[5] The court noted that although this definition seems to encompass all acquisitions of electronic communications regardless of when or how they were obtained, other courts have held that Congress intended a narrower definition of "intercept" with regard to electronic communications.^[2]

The Konop court pointed out that since Congress amended the Wiretap Act to eliminate a "storage" requirement from the definition of wire communication, see ^[6] the Smith court's decision was on par with Congressional intent of eradicating the stringent effects of "storage." Therefore, the Konop court noted that Congress accepted and approved of the Smith court's interpretation of "intercept" as an acquisition contemporaneous with transmission.

The Konop court then examined whether Konop's website was "intercepted" under the Wiretap Act. The court relied on Congressional intent noted above, along with the ordinary meaning of intercept, which means "to stop, seize, or interrupt in progress or course before arrival."^[7] The court found that the site's content was acquired by Davis while the information merely sat in electronic storage, and not while the information was in the process of being transmitted. The court, therefore held that because the Wiretap Act only covers interceptions of information that is being contemporaneously transmitted, Konop's claim for violation of the Wiretap Act failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The court further reasoned that its ruling was consistent with the ECPA's structure, which created the SCA to address "access to stored... electronic communications and transactional records."^[8] It said that the level of the protection afforded by the SCA is considerably less than the Wiretap Act's protection. Additionally, the procedures that the SCA set forth for law enforcement to access contents of stored electronic communications is considerably less burdensome than those required to obtain a wiretap under the Wiretap Act. The court said that if it were to extend stored electronic communications to the Wiretap Act, then the government would have to comply with the more burdensome procedures of the Wiretap Act, despite the fact that Congress has already authorized the government to access stored information under the less restrictive SCA. Surely, the court said, Congress could not have intended this result.

Concurrence/dissent

Justice Reinhardt dissented on the court's changed interpretation of the term "intercept." He took the position that "stored electronic communications" are subject to the statute's interception prohibition, rather than, as the majority held, solely to "contemporaneous acquisition." Prior to withdrawal of the original Appeals Court opinion (2001), Reinhardt's position had been the unanimous opinion of the court, as had also been written by Judge Boochever.

To Justice Reinhardt, the main question regarding the statutory provision's difficulties and inconsistencies rested with which reading was more consistent with congressional intent. Justice Reinhardt agreed with the majority that the Wiretap Act covered stored electronic communications under the definition of "electronic communications," but said that the majority unnecessarily added confusion to the statute by holding that "intercept" only refers to contemporaneous acquisition of electronic communications, and that it cannot be possible to "intercept" stored electronic communications.

Reinhardt stated that reading a contemporaneity requirement into the term "intercept" renders the prohibition against electronic communication interception superfluous, and contradicts the axiom that one statute's provision should never negate an accompanying provision.

Reinhardt reasoned that unlike telephone calls, electronic communications spend an infinite amount of time en route. Thus, if one can only intercept during a contemporaneous acquisition as the majority suggests, almost all acquisitions of electronic communication contents would escape the intercept prohibition entirely.

Reinhardt further added that the majority's reasoning that the term intercept would describe different conduct with respect to wire communications than to electronic communications because they both require different actions to intercept fails. He reasoned that because these forms of communication are technologically equivalent to each other, it makes little sense to treat them differently.

Related Research Articles

A covert listening device, more commonly known as a bug or a wire, is usually a combination of a miniature radio transmitter with a microphone. The use of bugs, called bugging, or wiretapping is a common technique in surveillance, espionage and police investigations.

Wiretapping, also known as wire tapping or telephone tapping, is the monitoring of telephone and Internet-based conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on an analog telephone or telegraph line. Legal wiretapping by a government agency is also called lawful interception. Passive wiretapping monitors or records the traffic, while active wiretapping alters or otherwise affects it.

A pen register, or dialed number recorder (DNR), is a device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line. The term has come to include any device or program that performs similar functions to an original pen register, including programs monitoring Internet communications.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was legislation passed by the Congress of the United States and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson that established the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). Title III of the Act set rules for obtaining wiretap orders in the United States. The act was a major accomplishment of Johnson's war on crime.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that establishes procedures for the surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence on domestic soil.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) was enacted by the United States Congress to extend restrictions on government wire taps of telephone calls to include transmissions of electronic data by computer, added new provisions prohibiting access to stored electronic communications, i.e., the Stored Communications Act, and added so-called pen trap provisions that permit the tracing of telephone communications . ECPA was an amendment to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which was primarily designed to prevent unauthorized government access to private electronic communications. The ECPA has been amended by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994, the USA PATRIOT Act (2001), the USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts (2006), and the FISA Amendments Act (2008).

Email privacy is a broad topic dealing with issues of unauthorized access to, and inspection of, electronic mail, or unauthorized tracking when a user reads an email. This unauthorized access can happen while an email is in transit, as well as when it is stored on email servers or on a user's computer, or when the user reads the message. In countries with a constitutional guarantee of the secrecy of correspondence, whether email can be equated with letters—therefore having legal protection from all forms of eavesdropping—is disputed because of the very nature of email.

United States v. Councilman, 373 F.3d 197, reversed en banc, 418 F.3d 67, was a criminal case involving interception of e-mail while in temporary storage en route to its final destination. Earlier rulings in the case had raised concerns about the privacy of e-mail and the effectiveness of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA).

The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures granted increased powers of surveillance to various government agencies and bodies. This title has 25 sections, with one of the sections containing a sunset clause which sets an expiration date, December 31, 2005, for most of the title's provisions. This was extended twice: on December 22, 2005 the sunset clause expiration date was extended to February 3, 2006 and on February 2 of the same year it was again extended, this time to March 10.

NSA warrantless surveillance — also commonly referred to as "warrantless-wiretapping" or "-wiretaps" — was the surveillance of persons within the United States, including U.S. citizens, during the collection of notionally foreign intelligence by the National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. In late 2001, the NSA was authorized to monitor, without obtaining a FISA warrant, phone calls, Internet activities, text messages and other forms of communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lays within the U.S.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency</i>

American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 493 F.3d 644, is a case decided July 6, 2007, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit against the National Security Agency (NSA), because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP).

The following is a section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures gave increased powers of surveillance to various government agencies and bodies. This title has 25 sections, with one of the sections containing a sunset clause which sets an expiration date, of 31 December 2005, for most of the title's provisions. On 22 December 2005, the sunset clause expiration date was extended to 3 February 2006.

The Terrorist Surveillance Program was an electronic surveillance program implemented by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was part of the President's Surveillance Program, which was in turn conducted under the overall umbrella of the War on Terrorism. The NSA, a signals intelligence agency, implemented the program to intercept al Qaeda communications overseas where at least one party is not a U.S. person. In 2005, The New York Times disclosed that technical glitches resulted in some of the intercepts including communications which were "purely domestic" in nature, igniting the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. Later works, such as James Bamford's The Shadow Factory, described how the nature of the domestic surveillance was much, much more widespread than initially disclosed. In a 2011 New Yorker article, former NSA employee Bill Binney said that his colleagues told him that the NSA had begun storing billing and phone records from "everyone in the country."

MAINWAY is a database maintained by the United States' National Security Agency (NSA) containing metadata for hundreds of billions of telephone calls made through the largest telephone carriers in the United States, including AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile.

The Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA),, is a controversial amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on August 5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reauthorized many provisions of the Protect America Act in Title VII of FISA.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, also called the FAA and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, is an Act of Congress that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has been used as the legal basis for surveillance programs disclosed by Edward Snowden in 2013, including PRISM.

The Stored Communications Act is a law that addresses voluntary and compelled disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party Internet service providers (ISPs). It was enacted as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA).

In re DoubleClick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 ("DoubleClick"), had Internet users initiate proceedings against DoubleClick, alleging that DoubleClick's placement of web cookies on computer hard drives of Internet users who accessed DoubleClick-affiliated web sites constituted violations of three federal laws: The Stored Communications Act, the Wiretap Statute and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Joffe v. Google, Inc. is a federal lawsuit between Ben Joffe and Google, Inc. Joffe claimed that Google broke one of the Wiretap Act segments when they intruded on the seemingly "public" wireless networks of private homes through their Street View application. Although Google tried to appeal their case multiple times, the courts favored Joffe's argument. Ultimately the Supreme Court declined to take the case, affirming the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the Wiretap Act covers the interception of unencrypted Wi-Fi communications.

Microsoft Corp. v. United States, known on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court as United States v. Microsoft Corp., 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018), was a data privacy case involving the extraterritoriality of law enforcement seeking electronic data under the 1986 Stored Communications Act (SCA), Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), in light of modern computing and Internet technologies such as data centers and cloud storage.

References

↑ Pub.L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848
1 2 United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 1998)
↑ 18 U.S.C. s. 2511(1)(a)
↑ Id. 2510(12)
↑ Id. s. 2510(4)
↑ USA PATRIOT ACT s. 209, 115 Stat. at 283
↑ Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 630 (1985)
↑ S.Rep. No. 99-541 at 3

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Pub.L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848

[auto-2] 1 2 United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 1998)

[3] 18 U.S.C. s. 2511(1)(a)

[4] Id. 2510(12)

[5] Id. s. 2510(4)

[6] USA PATRIOT ACT s. 209, 115 Stat. at 283

[7] Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 630 (1985)

[8] S.Rep. No. 99-541 at 3

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]