Senator Demands DOJ, FBI Seek Warrants To Read E-Mail

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If only there was way to make a law requiring a warrant to read private e-mail. If we just had a few select individuals in this country that could do that. :rolleyes:

"I am extremely concerned that the Justice Department and FBI are justifying warrantless searches of Americans' electronic communications based on a loophole in an outdated law that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled was unconstitutional," Udall said in a statement sent to CNET Thursday.
Click to expand...
 
Problems with people peeping your shit? Solution:

6ifz4m.gif
 
a subpoena -- a piece of paper signed by a prosecutor, not a judge -- was sufficient to obtain nearly "all records from an ISP"
Click to expand...

Provided the ISP doesn't challenge the subpoena - which they don't normally do - but that's a problem between you and your ISP and not a problem that needs to be addressed with some new law requiring a warrant. A subpoena is for when you're ordering someone to hand over something, a warrant is for when your authorizing search and seizure. You can fight subpoenas, you can't fight warrants.

Encrypt your emails. If you're not doing that, you're basically shouting the contents of your email across the internet for everyone to hear and you shouldn't expect them to be private.
 
GaryJohnson said:
Encrypt your emails. If you're not doing that, you're basically shouting the contents of your email across the internet for everyone to hear and you shouldn't expect them to be private.
Click to expand...

I like to end my emails with MUHAMMAD JIHAD and RED TEAM GO!!!
 
GaryJohnson said:
Encrypt your emails. If you're not doing that, you're basically shouting the contents of your email across the internet for everyone to hear and you shouldn't expect them to be private.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that mean a conversation over the traditional phone is not private either since anyone can easily tap into your line and listen. I believe you need a warrant for that despite how easy it is to eavesdrop it hence it shouldn't be any different for emails.
 
Normally the arguments on why newer means of communication are allowed to be tapped(warrantlessly) is based on expectations of privacy. Anyone who sends a message across multiple servers, which is that easy to read(at each step), must not have expectations of the conversion being private. If they wanted it to be private they would take extra steps, like encrypting their email. SO since they do not expect privacy, we are not breaking their right to said privacy.
 
Hornet said:
Wouldn't that mean a conversation over the traditional phone is not private either since anyone can easily tap into your line and listen. I believe you need a warrant for that despite how easy it is to eavesdrop it hence it shouldn't be any different for emails.
Click to expand...

Tapping into a hardline requires special effort from yourself to eavesdrop. In theory internet communication is being broadcast and exposed to multiple 3rd parties to the point where special effort to eavesdrop is not required. The broadcast part is true, the effort part is debatable. Can I really read someone else's content without deliberately trying to look for it?

I guess what were the laws on 'party lines' back in the old days where phone lines were shared by several homes.
 
Ponder said:
Normally the arguments on why newer means of communication are allowed to be tapped(warrantlessly) is based on expectations of privacy. Anyone who sends a message across multiple servers, which is that easy to read(at each step), must not have expectations of the conversion being private. If they wanted it to be private they would take extra steps, like encrypting their email. SO since they do not expect privacy, we are not breaking their right to said privacy.
Click to expand...

That's the bullshit reasoning people use to justify hidden cameras in public washrooms.

People expect it to be private, so there's a justifyable expectation of privacy. It's not Twitter.
 
Ponder said:
Normally the arguments on why newer means of communication are allowed to be tapped(warrantlessly) is based on expectations of privacy. Anyone who sends a message across multiple servers, which is that easy to read(at each step), must not have expectations of the conversion being private. If they wanted it to be private they would take extra steps, like encrypting their email. SO since they do not expect privacy, we are not breaking their right to said privacy.
Click to expand...

Anyone who (snail)mails a letter or package must not have any expectation of privacy. Anyone who sends a letter or package across multiple distribution centers which is that easy to read (at each stop), but not have any expectation of the contents of the letter or package being private. And yet, its still illegal to open somebody else's letter or package without a warrant or court order.
 
e-mail is a point to point communication system, very similar to letters. I don't see how privacy or protections should be any different for e-mail then for letters.

The fact that is electronic vs physical should not make expectations of privacy any different.

If an attorney can subpoena UPS/Fedex deliveries, then sure they should be allowed to subpoena e-mail in transit. If NOT go get a warrant.

If an attorney can subpoena PO box contents without a warrant, the yes they should be able to subpoena e-mail box contents from ISP/Services. If NOT go get a warrant.

We really have to be careful here... It is much easier to deny the Government now the ability, then to take it away later.
 
King of Heroes said:
Anyone who (snail)mails a letter or package must not have any expectation of privacy. Anyone who sends a letter or package across multiple distribution centers which is that easy to read (at each stop), but not have any expectation of the contents of the letter or package being private. And yet, its still illegal to open somebody else's letter or package without a warrant or court order.
Click to expand...

++1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top