IRS To Update E-Mail Search Policy

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
During a U.S. Senate hearing today, the IRS says it will abandon its no-warrant-required policy within the next thirty days. No decision was made on snooping on social media accounts.

The head of the Internal Revenue Service said today the agency would abandon its controversial policy that claimed the right to read taxpayers' e-mail without first obtaining a search warrant. Steven Miller, the IRS' acting commissioner, said at a U.S. Senate hearing that the no-warrant-required policy would be ditched within 30 days for e-mail, but he did not make the same commitment for other private electronic communications.
Click to expand...
 
Actually they probably just gave their favorite judges "refunds" so now they can go to warrants-R-us ... no more warrantless searches needed :p
 
-Dragon- said:
This is why I run my own email servers
Click to expand...

I'm not really seeing HOW the government accessed the emails. I see some big email providers names thown out there, but it doesn't say if the Fed's directly approached Google, Yahoo!, etc or if the Fed's were able to intercept the data.
 
westrock2000 said:
I'm not really seeing HOW the government accessed the emails. I see some big email providers names thown out there, but it doesn't say if the Fed's directly approached Google, Yahoo!, etc or if the Fed's were able to intercept the data.
Click to expand...

Feds already have access to all the data, have had for some time now.
 
Shit, hit enter too soon. Apparently it only makes people angry when its the IRS accessing the data.
 
bacon said:
Shit, hit enter too soon. Apparently it only makes people angry when its the IRS accessing the data.
Click to expand...

The IRS are probably at the bottom of the food chain too. CIA and DHS being at the top.

In fact they are probably just getting the scraps from the 2 above with forwarded emails that just say "FYI" like when your boss sends you something to rub it in.
 
How hard is this to understand? If you don't understand it, you are literally too stupid to live, or at least you should be sterilized, for the sake of future generations. :eek:

The Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

They were brilliant in using "effects" because it is completely technologically neutral, papers, safe deposit box, email, crystal magnetic domain data store, vulcan mind meld gland, WHAT FUCKING EVER.... secure in your effects, period. :rolleyes::p
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
How hard is this to understand? If you don't understand it, you are literally too stupid to live, or at least you should be sterilized, for the sake of future generations. :eek:

The Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

They were brilliant in using "effects" because it is completely technologically neutral, papers, safe deposit box, email, crystal magnetic domain data store, vulcan mind meld gland, WHAT FUCKING EVER.... secure in your effects, period. :rolleyes::p
Click to expand...

I think the wiggle room that government agencies and police have is the "unreasonable" word ... if they can justify the search is "reasonable" (like why they can look in your car windows when they pull you over and ask to search your vehicle if they see something questionable like drugs or alcohol) then they can get the information they want or need ... the US constitution was written to give a fair amount of wiggle room on several issues which is why the courts eventually decide what is legal and what is not ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top