Several Texas Internet service providers embroiled in the Texas attorney general's ongoing investigation of the Republic of Texas say that although they turned over some records relating to customer accounts, they in no way violated users' privacy.
The Attorney General's Office last month requested extensive electronic records from 10 ISPs believed to service Net-savvy Republic of Texas members. The records were sought as part of an investigation into the secessionist group's long-running paper war on the state government.
Two of the ten ISPs, Internet Texoma Inc. and Overland Network, refused to comply, and charged Attorney General Dan Morales with trying to make an end-run around the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Raising the specter of a government invasion of privacy, the two filed suit against Morales earlier this month. The suit charged the attorney general with "an illegal attempt to circumvent the procedures by which subscriber information can be properly obtained" and asked a state district court to require the attorney general to abide by federal and state law in seeking the information by obtaining a proper court order.
But several of the remaining eight ISPs which turned over information to the state insist that they did not violate their customers' rights to privacy in complying with the information request.
"The original subpoena was definitely overbroad. The AG just wanted to go fishing," says Doug Davis, chief operating officer of Internet America, one of Texas' larger service providers. Internet America gave the state some information about subscribers whose records were requested, but did not hand over email or detailed billing records.
"We had to get them to narrow the request, then we turned over what we could without violating the law or our customer agreements," Davis said. "What they asked for and what they got were two different things."
At least one of the eight ISPs reported to have turned over information, AppLink Corporation, is irate enough about Usenet allegations that the company violated customers' privacy that it is considering libel action against the online posters. An employee said the company gave the Attorney General's Office "only what was available to the public on the Internet" - a printout of a single Web site.
And others believe the privacy flap has been blown out of proportion by the two ISPs that are taking the attorney general to court.
"I'm afraid they may have gotten bent out of shape over nothing," says David Foster, director of marketing at Leapfrog Technologies, another of the ISPs involved in the case. "The only thing we handed over that wasn't available to the general public was the address of a single subscriber, whom we notified."
Nonetheless, Eric Weisberg, general counsel for Internet Texoma, maintains that he and Overland took the only conscientious route available when they refused the state's requests.
"What was requested was electronic logs of who sent what to whom," he said. "And when I objected to the broadness of the request, I was told to read my subscriber's email and decide what would help the state's investigation. It was improper to even suggest that I do that."
Other ISPs ordered to turn over information to the attorney general include Chemical, Electrical & Mechanical Corp., Internet Tyler, Victoria Internet Providers, Flashnet, and Rapid Ramp.
For its part, the Attorney General's Office, which now has in its possession electronic records from eight of the ten ISPs - information it once deemed crucial to its investigation - has decided that the information might not be as necessary as it once seemed. The boxes of records remained sealed, and the state may try to return them to the service providers.
