Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Court Refuses To Rule On ECPA Warrantless E-mail Searches

Soulskill posted about 6 years ago | from the not-yet-ripe dept.

The Courts 122

utkalum writes "After Steven Warshak's indictment and conviction on charges of mail and wire fraud, money laundering and other federal charges, he learned that key evidence in the case was obtained by the government under a 1986 law permitting no-warrant searches of email communications stored for longer than 180 days. He also learned that, despite the Electronic Communication Privacy Act's requirement that such searches be disclosed to the suspect no more than 90 days after they were commenced, the Government simply couldn't be bothered to comply. Now, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has refused (9-5) to hear Warshak's constitutional challenge to the Act (PDF), claiming that the question raised is 'not yet ripe' for adjudication. It's worth noting that the court also vacated an earlier injunction against using that act to read the e-mail of other people in Warshak's district. Read on for an excerpt from the ruling.'Not only do "we have no idea whether or when" such a search will occur but we also "have no idea" what e-mail accounts, or what types of e-mail accounts, the government might investigate ... That uncertainty looms large in a debate about the expectations of privacy in e-mail accounts. The underlying merits issue in the case is this: In permitting the government to search e-mails based on "reasonable grounds," is 2703(d) consistent with the Fourth Amendment, which generally requires "probable cause" and a warrant in the context of searches of individuals, homes and, perhaps most analogously, posted mail? The answer to that question will turn in part on the expectations of privacy that computer users have in their e-mails — an inquiry that may well shift over time, that assuredly shifts from internet-service agreement to internet-service agreement and that requires considerable knowledge about everevolving technologies.'

cancel ×

122 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bush told me... (5, Funny)

packeteer (566398) | about 6 years ago | (#24159401)

Its ok to break the law as long as your catching a bad guy right?

Re:Bush told me... (5, Insightful)

I cant believe its n (1103137) | about 6 years ago | (#24159459)

Well, I hear torture is ok.

Re:Bush told me... (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about 6 years ago | (#24160953)

Not only that but if they cannot find the more than 180 day email to prove their case, they can make some email files up. Not like a judge or jury knows the difference between real email and faked email or real documents and faked documents. I used to work for a law firm that had a program that allowed them to make documents or email say whatever they wanted them to say as evidence and nobody ever was the wiser. That is how they got out of that 1998 FBI investigation of them for fraud as they pinned it all on one partner when really it was most of the partners that did something wrong. The FBI, the judge, and the jury never knew the truth that they faked all emails and documents and got rid of the real ones that incriminated the other partners.

Re:Bush told me... (5, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about 6 years ago | (#24159645)

Goddamnit, that's not funny. That's depressing.

Re:Bush told me... (2, Funny)

devnullkac (223246) | about 6 years ago | (#24161579)

Sorry, no +1, Depressing moderation available that I know of.

Re:Bush told me... (1)

Adambomb (118938) | about 6 years ago | (#24164087)

Thats the funny thing about Funny.

Dictionary.com (v 1.1)
funny
1. providing fun; causing amusement or laughter; amusing; comical: a funny remark; a funny person.
2. attempting to amuse; facetious: Did you really mean that or were you just being funny?
3. warranting suspicion; deceitful; underhanded: We thought there was something funny about those extra charges.
4. Informal. insolent; impertinent: Don't get funny with me, young man!
5. curious; strange; peculiar; odd: Her speech has a funny twang.
-noun 6. Informal. a funny remark or story; a joke: to make a funny.

and the fact that bolded was there right off the bat at old dictionary.com did make me smirk somewhat.

time for coffee indeed.

Re:Bush told me... (1)

El Jynx (548908) | about 6 years ago | (#24159887)

From a temporal perspective, there is no law because such people ignore them, cover them up or dance around them. Hence, one could argue that because Bush COULD, somewhere in the future, declare all past laws void all the way back through time, deftly saving his own ass and setting himself up as eternal tyrant. Fortunately, I'm the only person capable of coming up with such bullshit.

Re:Bush told me... (2, Insightful)

AllIGotWasThisNick (1309495) | about 6 years ago | (#24159933)

Fortunately, I'm the only person capable of coming up with such bullshit.

You seem to have yourself confused with this guy [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Bush told me... (1, Troll)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about 6 years ago | (#24161001)

Yeah you and all of the other 911 conspiracy theorists. The only thing you forgot to mention was that the government did 911, and Bush and others are all members of the New World Order that made the Constitution and all other laws null and void. Also that McCain or Obama will gladly serve as Bush's third term in office because they are secretly controlled by the NWO as well.

Don't give yourself too much credit, the Internet is full of people who really are capable of coming up with such bullshit. Just that by now, it is getting really boring and predictable.

Re:Bush told me... (1)

daemonburrito (1026186) | about 6 years ago | (#24161553)

First, *whoosh*.

Also, this. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Bush told me... (0, Troll)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about 6 years ago | (#24166753)

First, "Wrong!"

Also, this. [thebestpag...iverse.net]

Re:Bush told me... (1)

daemonburrito (1026186) | about 6 years ago | (#24167289)

The "whoosh" is for you missing a joke about the WH's *ahem* novel interpretation of the law. It wasn't actually speculation about some strange conspiracy.

The link to the wikipedia article on "strawman" arguments is to point out the weakness in your logic, in this case a fallacy that a joke about the WH's objectively creative legal opinions meant that the GP (or me, for that matter) is a 911 conspiracy theorist.

In other words, there is no connection between criticism of the executive branch and 911 conspiracy theories. Your conflation of the two is either ignorant or dishonest.

Re:Bush told me... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24160269)

If you are breaking the law, then you are the bad guys. I can't be arsed right now, but I wonder how many of the "federal" judges who just lied about the ripeness of this 4th Amendment question were Bush appointees. I have personal experience at this level and have found his judges (yep, I call them his judges) do not believe the Constitution is anything more than a piece of paper. Of course, that's just what Bush believes (and has stated for the public record).

On the other hand, Bush is a convicted criminal. So sometimes the courts get things right.

Bush told me.... (5, Insightful)

Roskolnikov (68772) | about 6 years ago | (#24159437)

This doesn't apply at the White House, apparently they don't archive their email.....or at least you can't prove that they may or may not......

Re:Bush told me.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24159475)

This doesn't apply at the White House, apparently they don't archive their email

thats because they archive yours and their political enemies oh and those juicy insider stock tips (they are not millionaires for nothing)

Re:Bush told me.... (1)

teknosapien (1012209) | about 6 years ago | (#24160165)

Plausible deniability

Re:Bush told me.... (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about 6 years ago | (#24161029)

That was the same way the Clinton administration ran things. All email was deleted and record retention got rid of memos and documents.

Does the name Sandy Berger [worldnetdaily.com] ring a bell?

Re:Bush told me.... (2, Informative)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | about 6 years ago | (#24164323)

Using the Wing Nut Daily as a source doesn't help your argument any, but thanks for making your neocon shill credentials so clear.

I will use a similarly biased web site (although it has a slightly better truthiness reputation) to rebut your claim: thinkprogress.org [thinkprogress.org]

Here [washingtonpost.com] is another article about the Sandy Berger incident, from a slightly more reputable news source. Note how right wing propagandists like to say that Berger "stole" or "removed" classified documents from the Archives, when he actually took home COPIES, which was still a big legal nono, but the difference in argument is typical of how neocons like to misrepresent facts.

Next time you try and put out neocon propaganda, I suggest making sure your statements can't be rebutted by web sites which show up on the first page of a Google search. You'll be able to fool more people that way.

Re:Bush told me.... (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about 6 years ago | (#24166731)

I could use the same argument that the liberal biased web site is pure propaganda that downplays the incident in that he took home copies and deserves a slap on the wrist for breaking federal law.

The New York Times [nytimes.com] covers it that he "removed the classified material inadvertently".

I'll cite Wikipedia On Sandy Berger [wikipedia.org] "In April 2005, Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington. According to the lead prosecutor in the case Berger only took copies of classified information and that no original material was destroyed; however, there is notable controversy and speculation that he might have removed or destroyed originals of other unknown documents as well."

CNN has an article on it as well [cnn.com] .

He plead guilty to removing the documents and got a slap on the wrist.

My statement was that the Clinton administration got rid of emails, documents, and memos as well. Berger pleading guilty to those charges proves that what I said is true, be it that a right-wing, left-wing, or neutral source is cited, they all say the same thing that he plead guilty to removing documents and memos.

This is proof of what happened under the Clinton administration. Now please show proof that it happens under the Bush administration as well. Using your own logic, don't use a liberal biased web site to do so. Now let's see if you can do it.

Re:Bush told me.... (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 6 years ago | (#24161219)

except there is a "go to jail" law for NOT archiving their email. By not having provable record trails they are in violation of the law as much as if they hid evidence after the fact.

Re:Bush told me.... (1)

david.peace (1302591) | about 6 years ago | (#24164421)

no, they can't recall if they saved it.

How long will it take to ripen then? (1)

Puffy Director Pants (1242492) | about 6 years ago | (#24159461)

Is it like one of those cheeses they leave in a cave for a decade? Or a fine liquor that ages for half a century?

Re:How long will it take to ripen then? (1)

elemnt14 (1319289) | about 6 years ago | (#24159509)

Well, if its liquor it is definitely not a "fine" grade, probably opposite. If its cheese, then it probably is going to be one of the more foul smelling ones. I personally think its the aging process where we get rotten tomatoes.

Re:How long will it take to ripen then? (1, Funny)

ksd1337 (1029386) | about 6 years ago | (#24159563)

Windows has "ripened" for over 30 years, and now we have something called Vista. And it's definitely foul-smelling.

Re:How long will it take to ripen then? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 years ago | (#24161137)

how about "ripened as in a dead skunk under the front porch in July"?

Re:How long will it take to ripen then? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 6 years ago | (#24162611)

More like the opossum that crawled into your attic and died. Believe me,if you have ever smelled a dead opossum then dead skunk is like Chanel Number 5 in comparison. And with the humidity in AR they tend to stew for awhile before the stench waffles down. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Possession is 9 points of the law (5, Insightful)

shanen (462549) | about 6 years ago | (#24159499)

Unless we own our personal information, we will have no privacy and no freedom. If I know *EVERYTHING* about you and have a few henchmen, then I can surely control you and eliminate your freedom. No one is perfect. You must have some weakness that can be approached. Some way to be bribed? Or surely you've made some embarrassing mistakes that could be leveraged against you? What's your hook? Gambling? Booze? Whatever it is, if I know enough about you, then I can eventually make you do whatever I want.

Is there a solution? Yes. We must own our personal data. It cannot belong to the companies to buy and sell like oil futures and shares in gold mines. The strongest form of ownership is possession--the famous 9 points of the law. Once you have possession, then it is up to the other side to show they have some claim on your personal property (in the form of information in this case).

If any company wants to store some information about me, they should be required to store it on *MY* computer. They can sign it so that I can't tamper with it. That's a trivial aspect. However, whenever they want to *USE* my information, they should be required to tell me why. This can mostly be automated in the form of my personal privacy preferences, and for most queries there is no reason I should stop them--but I should always be free to change my mind.

(I only see one other alternative that preserves any personal freedom. That would be the total exposure of everyone's personal information. It would be a kind of war, but at least all of us could be on a kind of equal footing. Yet however much I would like to know the full truth about Dubya Bush, I don't think that's going to happen.)

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 years ago | (#24160209)

If any company wants to store some information about me, they should be required to store it on *MY* computer.

OK, you keep your info on *YOUR* computer. I ask for it politely and you say, "OK" - I get some.

Now, it's on *MY* computer. And the computer of anyone I give the information to.

So, once the information is out there, it's out there. The only thing you can do is enforce laws that deal with information breaches and enforce them quickly and routinely. Unfortunately, that's exactly what's not happening here. If you really don't want the information out there, you don't give anyone your SSN, Visa card (in fact you don't have one), phone number (in fact, you don't have one), credit history (in fact, you don't have one).

So you live in a tent or the YMCA. That may be OK with you, but I would submit it's not going to fly with the populace at large.

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (1)

shanen (462549) | about 6 years ago | (#24163625)

Before I permitted you to copy my personal information, I asked you why. That's a fuzzy big question. For example, if you said because you have asked me to help approve a loan application, then my system is going to respond with a whole string of questions. For example, you're going to have to prove who you are, who you represent, and provide a confirmation link to the lean application you claim to be talking about. In my own personal privacy policy, for sensitive financial information I might well include a final personal double-check with me. Or maybe I would make that dependent on the amount of money? Anyway, it would be MY decision, freely made.

My own privacy policies would also be time sensitive. If you say that you need the information for one week, then I'll let you have it for one week. If you still have the information on the eighth day, then you are violating our agreement or committing theft (depending on the details), and I'm going to come after you. Again, this is a technical question that we can address with existing technology. Basically, when I give out personal information I will also sign it the authorization. Possession of unsigned personal information should be a crime. Trying to ignore the signature won't work, either, because that can be checked with my computer, and it can again be determined that you have committed a crime.

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24160221)

Yes, total openness would be very interesting. Imagine knowing all correspondence, all decisions and everything about what goes on in every corporation and between every person.

Surely, when it comes to private citizens, that should make human culture less judgmental... Or would it?

Would there be a purity race instead? If everything was open and accessible, like with all-access cctv everywhere except for maybe toilets and bedrooms, would people realize that farts, for instance are natural and normal or would they try to stop farting?

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (2, Insightful)

steveaustin1971 (1094329) | about 6 years ago | (#24160285)

You have only the rights they say you have. Period.

Gambling? Booze? (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 6 years ago | (#24161613)

The problem is the people.

I like gambling, I like booze. I vote, often doing all three at once!

But if I tell people the truth about my multifaceted personality, they wouldn't vote for me (because I would tell them things they don't want to hear).

So you get "politicians" instead. They get to decide what the rules are, and they are all pandering to "the people". Almost by definition you get liars to "represent" you. The actions of liars and idiots are almost indistinguishable, so I guess there is some justice there. (e.g. "The people get the government they deserve")

Democrats: "Vote for me, I'll give you someone else's money!"

Republicans: "Vote for me, I'll give your money to my friends!"

Libertarians: "Vote for me, it's perfectly harmless!" (because I never win).

Too many idiots get to vote. If we had BOTH compulsory voting, AND a minimum qualification-to-vote test, we might be better off.

I doubt as many people would come up with excuses to not vote as come up with reasons to avoid jury duty. (Who gets on Jury duty is a whole-nother topic...)

Re:Gambling? Booze? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 6 years ago | (#24162609)

If we had BOTH compulsory voting, AND a minimum qualification-to-vote test, we might be better off.

Not forgetting instant runoff voting when voting for one or a few people (ie. president), and proportional representation plurality voting when voting for a group of people (ie. senate, representatives).

Re:Gambling? Booze? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 6 years ago | (#24168611)

We don't need instant runoff voting because we have the electoral system.

It doesn't matter if someone gets more votes the second time around, they just need to get enough to take enough electoral votes.

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 6 years ago | (#24162591)

What's your hook? Gambling? Booze? Whatever it is, if I know enough about you, then I can eventually make you do whatever I want.

I have no hook. I'm a devout Christian living in the US Midwest, who has a husband, 2 children (born after wedlock), and a couple of SUVs. I go to church every Sunday, think only clean thoughts, and have missionary-style sex only. I never looked at porn, and decry all the evil criminals and porno people out there. I'm a loyal Republican voter, and a proud US citizen. Our wars around the world are fully justified, and out government doesn't lie to us (much). I'm in support of the death penalty. I don't drink alcohol, and live only a clean, humble, and wholesome lifestyle, as do my family. My favourite drink is water, my favourite food is bread. I do not gamble.

<devilsadvocate>

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (1)

shanen (462549) | about 6 years ago | (#24163679)

You didn't tell me enough about yourself--but I know you're just faking it anyway. In fact, it doesn't have to be a real flaw. For example, maybe you exchanged some email with a boyfriend in high school. It wasn't anything serious, but it sounds a little embarrassing. Let's use that as leverage to get you to do a little favor at the office, say a list of names just so we won't embarrass you with the email...

Oh wait. Now it turns out that you've committed a felony. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Our next little request...

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 6 years ago | (#24168631)

I have no hook. I'm a devout Christian living in the US Midwest, who has a husband, 2 children (born after wedlock), and a couple of SUVs. I go to church every Sunday, think only clean thoughts, and have missionary-style sex only. I never looked at porn, and decry all the evil criminals and porno people out there. I'm a loyal Republican voter, and a proud US citizen. Our wars around the world are fully justified, and out government doesn't lie to us (much). I'm in support of the death penalty. I don't drink alcohol, and live only a clean, humble, and wholesome lifestyle, as do my family. My favourite drink is water, my favourite food is bread. I do not gamble.

If you ever get a divorce and or take up drinking, do you want go out sometime? You sound like the wife I wanted but never got. Maybe we can work something out on the side, You know, part time, if that's your thing.

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about 6 years ago | (#24162617)

I would be inclined to agree with you, but isn't what you describe just another form of Imaginary Property?

I wish it could be true, what you say--but I just don't think it's realistic.

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (1)

mazarin5 (309432) | about 6 years ago | (#24162713)

Do you love anonymously slashing other people? You, too, can be a SlashDot moderator. No, thanks, and stop asking me.

Just go to your preferences [slashdot.org] and uncheck "Willing to Moderate."

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (1)

shanen (462549) | about 6 years ago | (#24163651)

Thanks. I never knew about that option. The moderation system on /. is just TOO screwed up to bother with. I think it's because of the anonymity, but the dimensional reduction doesn't help, either...

Re:Possession is 9 points of the law (1)

defaria (741527) | about 6 years ago | (#24165561)

Unless we own our personal information, we will have no privacy and no freedom. If I know *EVERYTHING* about you and have a few henchmen, then I can surely control you and eliminate your freedom. No one is perfect. You must have some weakness that can be approached. Some way to be bribed? Or surely you've made some embarrassing mistakes that could be leveraged against you? What's your hook? Gambling? Booze? Whatever it is, if I know enough about you, then I can eventually make you do whatever I want.

Actually no you can't. You assume that 1) people have vices and 2) people have vices that they are embarrassed about enough about that you can use it against them. But what if the person in question couldn't give a rat's ass if you expose the fact that he gambles, or boozes, or whatever? Then your "power" sir falls apart! You see I don't care if you know I booze or gamble (I do both). Trick is live your life so that you are not ashamed and nobody can shame you!

Is there a solution? Yes. We must own our personal data. It cannot belong to the companies to buy and sell like oil futures and shares in gold mines. The strongest form of ownership is possession--the famous 9 points of the law. Once you have possession, then it is up to the other side to show they have some claim on your personal property (in the form of information in this case).

Actually you already own your information - even if stored on their computer systems. And while possession might make your case a bit stronger, many times you cannot stop them from storing such information on their systems too.

If any company wants to store some information about me, they should be required to store it on *MY* computer.

Quite simply that ain't gonna happen. For one, not everybody has a computer. Secondly, you're requiring that said computer be connected to the Internet, powered up and can be communicated with. Finally, I'd say only about 5% of computer users know how to set up any such services with the vast majority of them clueless and will simply host their "information" on other companies servers. This is not much different that what's going on today.

They can sign it so that I can't tamper with it. That's a trivial aspect. However, whenever they want to *USE* my information, they should be required to tell me why. This can mostly be automated in the form of my personal privacy preferences, and for most queries there is no reason I should stop them--but I should always be free to change my mind.

What will happen is what is happening - companies will simply draft up an agreement that states they can freely use your information and you can decide whether or not you wish to agree. You can choose not to agree - just like you can right now. But then you don't get the service. Then all companies will behave similarly and viola! You got exactly what we have now! Read the fine print in your agreement with your bank or credit card company. You've already agreed! And, you really can stop it whenever you want! Simply stop doing business with that company and probably 90% of the companies out there, buy a shack in Montana and live in the woods. People do it.

(I only see one other alternative that preserves any personal freedom. That would be the total exposure of everyone's personal information. It would be a kind of war, but at least all of us could be on a kind of equal footing. Yet however much I would like to know the full truth about Dubya Bush, I don't think that's going to happen.)

You're living under two delusions here: The first is the idea that people in America here in the 21st century care at all about personal freedom or freedoms in general! They don't. They barely give it lip service anymore. The other delusion you are living under here is the pompous presumption that anybody cares about you or your personal data! They do if they can rip you off (i.e. financial data) but otherwise I'm sorry to say - you're uninteresting. (And yes I know I'm uninteresting too - but I don't care).

Contact the court here: (0, Redundant)

mitch.swampman (1216614) | about 6 years ago | (#24159501)

Court of Appeals 540 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse 100 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone: 513-564-7000

Re:Contact the court here: (4, Informative)

mitch.swampman (1216614) | about 6 years ago | (#24159535)

Disregard my mangled post :(
Should read:
Court of Appeals
540 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse
100 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone: 513-564-7000

Re:Contact the court here: (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 6 years ago | (#24159809)

What would contacting the court do?

Re:Contact the court here: (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | about 6 years ago | (#24160825)

well, a flurry of letters politely explaining why the 9 judges are breathtakingly incompetent, dangerous morons, not fit to breath the same air as the rest of us has a 1% chance of getting something changed, and a 100% of making the person who sent them feel like they've got something changed.

Re:Contact the court here: (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 6 years ago | (#24160853)

well, a flurry of letters politely explaining why the 9 judges are breathtakingly incompetent, dangerous morons, not fit to breath the same air as the rest of us has a 1% chance of getting something changed, and a 100% of making the person who sent them feel like they've got something changed.

I don't want a judiciary that would knuckle under to those kinds of letters. They made a legal decision, and I think a wrong one, but reading the opinion they weren't so wrong as to constitute "morons."

Re:Contact the court here: (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | about 6 years ago | (#24160957)

I haven't read it, I was just answering the question.
I don't know if I'd want a judiciary which knuckles under to abusive letters either, (though I would like one which won't wave a piece of paper about shouting 'we must do X because the paper says so' when X is clearly wrong), that's why I gave a low percentage chance of something being done. You can replace it with 0.0000001% if you want.

'ripeness' is valid (4, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 6 years ago | (#24159507)

Now, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has refused (9-5) to hear Warshak's constitutional challenge to the Act (PDF), claiming that the question raised is 'not yet ripe' for adjudication.

Anyone who is going to tartly respond to this inflammatory statement would do well to read the link contained in the statement... 'ripeness' is an important legal concept, and it is clear that the matter is, as yet, unripe.

In order for the 'ripeness' qualification to be met, decision on the claim must affect the outcome. It's clear from reading the link that the outcome would not be affected, since the government is unlikely to perform another ex parte search; and even if they did, it wouldn't matter, since the guy who was indicted knows full well that he is under indictment, and would be even more of a fool to leave any more emails hanging around for the government to search.

As for the other issues, I'll not comment, since I don't think my words would bear the fruit.

Re:'ripeness' is valid (3, Informative)

corsec67 (627446) | about 6 years ago | (#24159617)

This guy can't sue to prevent this from happening to other people?

Could someone who hasn't been caught by this snooping sue?

So, people who have been affect can't sue because it wouldn't happen again, and people who haven't been affected can't sue either?

Or is my thinking just wrong? (IANAL, so that is easy)

Re:'ripeness' is valid (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24161685)

ripeness is a dodge legally to allow a court to distance itself from a controversy.
he cant sue for other people because eh has no standing.
other ppl cannot sue because they have no ripeness or standing either.

Re:'ripeness' is valid (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 6 years ago | (#24168679)

Anyone effected by the actions can sue. The problem is that the suit is for damages (statutory, real, and punitive). This guy was attempting to appeal an earlier decision. The ripeness of the argument basically means that even without these emails or the evidence presented by or in connection with these emails, he would have gotten the same ruling.

Your actually thinking of a separate process connectedly similar by the same laws. If the guy could show that the outcome of his trial would have been different, (perhaps because all evidence was linked to the discovery of the illegal confiscation of the emails) then the challenge would be ripe and arguable.

Re:'ripeness' is valid (2, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 6 years ago | (#24159783)

I am not sure I agree about "ripe". I am concerned about warrantless searches. I think there has to be a position on that, and an absolute one. The government absolutely cannot conduct any search in meat-space or cyberspace without a warrant from a Judge, who is a member of the Judicial branch of government.

The fact that the government did not feel it had to comply with its own 90 day rule just shows how arrogant and "above the law" they feel that they are.

In any case, if this was any more "ripe" we could get drunk of it. Even if the guy is truly guilty, the government must follow the law at ALL times. Letting the guy go and sanctioning those involved is the only way to stop those in government from getting out of control.

So I respect what you said, which is quite insightful, but I have to disagree. The court should hear the argument.

Re:'ripeness' is valid (4, Informative)

Londovir (705740) | about 6 years ago | (#24160663)

In the same spirit of respect, I have to disagree with what you posted.

If you read the entire opinion, the following was mentioned:

- The government sought permission twice from a magistrate judge to gain access to the guy's email records. (So it's not a warrant, but it WAS an official court order)
- The government had to demonstrate to the magistrate that the records they sought contained information "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation" (So it wasn't a blind or frivolous fishing expedition)
- The government was ordered by the magistrate to delay giving notice since the judge felt there was a credible chance of the guy tampering with evidence
- The judge sealed the court orders related to the searches

My point is, unlike other abuses of government warrantless work, at least this one had some measure of judicial review involved. That makes this case different, IMHO, than other warrantless wiretapping and such, and care should be taken to not draw conclusions about either with a broad stroke here.

The court also felt that not only was the case "not ripe" for ruling (which has a very clear and painstakingly discussed meaning in the opinion), but that the guy partially argued on the wrong grounds. They almost suggest he MIGHT have had a shot of having his case heard if he'd argued 1st Amendment rather than 4th Amendment (since he alluded to the idea of a "chilling effect" when it comes to emails) - but he didn't, he argued 4th Amendment.

In fact, from reading the opinion, it seems as though this guy completely "screwed up" his entire arguments. It sounds as though he sued on the grounds of future, potential searches, rather than on particular admissability of the emails that were gained during the prior 2 searches. It definitely was an issue that the guy sought to overturn ALL of 2703(d), for everyone, rather than just his particular case. The court makes great pains to state how they refuse to make a potential constitutional ruling for a general class situation where each person's particulars may be widely different.

I'd say the court did a reasonable thing with this decision, all things considered. The guy clearly should have known from his Yahoo TOS that his emails weren't going to be fully private in the first case - and in fact it was pointed out in his own TOS that "emails will be provided to the government upon request." (That argues, possibly, that the government may have been able to get the emails from Yahoo without any court involvement at all - depending on how Yahoo wants to proceed)

All in all, seems like nothing more to see here to me. Let's focus on FISA, where the real problems are, not on this non-case.

Re:'ripeness' is valid (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 6 years ago | (#24161387)

this is why we need to get away from the adversarial system to something else that determines "truthfulness" and can meet binding punishments to BOTH sides if rules are broken. When the prosecution breaks the rules, the investigation of that rule breaking should also be under that trial's jurisdiction, not dependent on those same offices to file new charges. In cases like this on sentencing day both the defendant and possible officers will be going to jail at the same time!

In a famous case like the OJ case, under these terms he would have still been convicted... and the officers and lawyers that purged themselves to get him would also spend time in jail..all on the same case docket with sentencing considerations against both sides. We need more direct accountability in criminal cases for the prosecution, then letting them bend the rules would be more tolerable.

  Essentially the prosecution broke the rules, but the defense attorney didn't quote exactly the right rule they broke, a the right time...so they got away with it. This "all or nothing" idea needs to end because it is allowing prosecution to bend/break more and more rules while holding court "hostage" with the only remedy being let the "bad guy go".

Re:'ripeness' is valid (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 6 years ago | (#24168821)

It isn't that they got away with it, he can reformulate the arguments and resubmit them. In fact, that is probably why the court suggested going into the 1st amendment arena.

And no, the only remedy isn't allowing the bad guy to be let go. Anyone can complain to the bar which can remove the prosecutions ability to practice or even work as a prosecutor (look at Jack Thompson and Bill Clinton. Also, the alleged activity can be punished by the local political scenes, or if it wasn't a federal case, any higher jurisdictional means. If the city prosecutor is rabidly corrupt, then the state or federal AG's office can bring charges on them. This can go up to the federal level where independent prosecutors can be assigned. Here is a situation [wsj.com] where the government was manipulated by the judge in order to get a special prosecutor in a criminal contempt case involving Dickie Scruggs [wikipedia.org] (look to the Katrina section)..

Re:'ripeness' is valid (1)

dunnius (1298159) | about 6 years ago | (#24159899)

The claim of 'not yet ripe' is a really lame excuse so that they don't have to rule on this, those lazy bastards. A blatant violation of the fourth amendment is not acceptable. It is really sad when our judges refuse to protect the constitution.

Re:'ripeness' is valid (3, Informative)

cpu_fusion (705735) | about 6 years ago | (#24159973)

I think you just described "mootness", not "ripeness."

Ripeness is a prudential rule (i.e. court-created) that the court uses to basically say that not enough is understood about the pros and cons of a particular ruling for stare decisis at the appellate level.

Sometimes the court invokes Ripeness when the counsel (or facts) are judged to be not adequate for a good decision. e.g. defense counsel sucks, or the facts suck, or whatever.

I'm not saying either is the case here; it's just a dodge for the court.

I think the prudential standing rules should be unconstitutional, but given that deciding constitutionality is the courts domain, I don't see them giving this power up.

Re:'ripeness' is valid (3, Informative)

Free_Meson (706323) | about 6 years ago | (#24160005)

A lot of folks here are going to complain about this decision without really understanding the case. It seems to me that this guy's lawyer made some poor decisions if he was pinning his hopes on this decision.

It appears that Warshak asked for two things:
-an injunction against future searches under 2703(d) without notice
-a ruling on the constitutionality of 2703(d) on the grounds that it allows the violation of a citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy without a warrant

On the first matter, the court's ripeness argument strikes the nail on the head. Warshak knows that he is under investigation now (indeed, he is convicted) so there's no need for judicially-delayed notification.

On the second matter, the court points out that a citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) when using an electronic mail/data storage service will vary with the terms of service agreed upon between the citizen and the service provider. Thus, whether a citizen has a REP should be decided on a case by case basis.

Warshak should be arguing that he had a REP and that the statute as applied to him was a violation of his 4th amendment rights. I don't think that's a winner, as 2703(d) appears to require probable cause or something like it.

Probable cause:

Probable cause is what would lead a person of reasonable caution and prudence to believe that a person, evidence, or contraband related to a crime is in a specific place at a specific time.

2703(d):

"a court of competent jurisdiction" may issue an order based on "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."

2703(d) is slightly more broad than probable cause, as there is no need for the records or other information sought to be useful as evidence of a crime. They need merely be relevant and material. For example, a contact list from Warshak's email service provider may give investigators an idea of who to contact to discover more victims of his wire fraud scheme without itself being evidence of said scheme. In this case, though, I suspect that investigators would have had sufficient probable cause had they sought a warrant. As with a warrant, investigators had to prove to an impartial magistrate their reasonable belief that Warshak's service provider had evidence relevant to a specific criminal investigation. The principle advantage gained by using 2703(d) in this case appears to be the delayed notice provision.

Re:'ripeness' is valid (1)

shanen (462549) | about 6 years ago | (#24160109)

That's one way to put it. The other way to look at ripeness is the appeals judge can choose to ignore some crime by saying the current case just isn't ripe enough. It's basically a subjective call, but I'd love to see the statistics on the 'ripeness' decisions of the current Supreme Court so-called Justices.

The American legal system might do well to consider some judicial reforms based on international standards. In many countries, the courts can actually look at laws for Constitutional questions before anyone gets hurt.

Re:'ripeness' is valid (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 6 years ago | (#24161271)

it is very ripe because prosecution did not perform the defense of ALL the evidence gathering options as required under the law and court procedures. On one hand it may not change the outcome of the case because the evidence was legally obtained. On the other hand, they cheated at the rules.. the defensed didn't get the proper, equal time to consider defense against the evidence.

There MUST be some sanction or we don't have the rule of law. That is the problem with so much of what's going on under the Bush administration.

Sorry dude (2, Insightful)

NaCh0 (6124) | about 6 years ago | (#24159529)

You're guilty and there is no way out of it on a technicality.

The only concern for the rest of us is that we have so many damn laws on the books that many of them are starting to conflict.

Re:Sorry dude (4, Insightful)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 6 years ago | (#24161413)

the other side BROKE THE LAW. How are THEY getting punished? The only remedy a defendant has is to try to get the case thrown out. The court has no remedy to sit the lawyers that chose to break the rules in jail next to him. The prosecution obviously won't arrest it's own people for breaking the law and this is where the legal system has broken down in the last 40 years or so. There is no court remedy for abuses unless the "prosecution" chooses to file the charges... that's highly unfair and not "justice".

I'm not saying this guy shouldn't go to jail, but according to the facts of the case there should be a lawyer in jail next to him.

When courts refuse to enforce laws against govt (2, Insightful)

hguorbray (967940) | about 6 years ago | (#24159531)

this will further erode citizen respect for the rule of law

Not to mention respect for the courts and gubmint

  -which I imagine is already pretty low given the current slide towards a fascist corporate oligarchy (I know that's a little redundant)

-I'm just sayin'

No big wow. The Court's just being lazy. (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 6 years ago | (#24159577)

The 9th Circuit could have decided the facts presented in this case (the close opinion is proof enough of that), but they didn't. So the poor injunction-seeker is denied his injunction because his legal claim is not ripe for adjudication.

Sooner or later, some dirtbag is going to be charged with a crime and evidence is going to be collected via the challenged Act. The dirtbag will file a motion to suppress, and an appeal will eventually result from that (with the dirtbag's liberty hanging in the balance).

Sooner or later there will be a ruling. Everybody'll just have to wait.

Re:No big wow. The Court's just being lazy. (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 6 years ago | (#24159715)

The 9th Circuit could have decided the facts presented in this case (the close opinion is proof enough of that)

Doubtful, since the opinion was produced by the 6th Circuit.

Everevolving technologies? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24159597)

What has changed since RFC 1123's [ietf.org] clarifications of SMTP?

There really should be no expectation of privacy in e-mail. I've been hearing since at least 1989 that e-mailing sensitive information is about as secure as writing it on a postcard--and I never even used e-mail until 1998! It's no more private today than it ever was.

If you want to send evidence of your criminal activity by e-mail and keep it secure, learn to use encryption. Or better yet, don't, and get convicted and sentenced. Please.

I believe in the 4th Amendment, but I really don't think it applies here.

Re:Everevolving technologies? (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | about 6 years ago | (#24159865)

If I leave my door unlocked it is still a crime to enter without permission, and it is still unconstitutional to do a search without cause.

Also, email is just as secure as traditional, envelope contained, mail, more so even, since intercepting email requires skill, intercepting mail just requires a working pair of hands. The difference is that with snail mail the law protects privacy instead of stripping it away.

Re:Everevolving technologies? (3, Insightful)

Null Nihils (965047) | about 6 years ago | (#24159959)

There really should be no expectation of privacy in e-mail.

Who are you to decide that? Like I said in a post on a similar topic [slashdot.org] :

"...the canonical user interface icon for e-mail is... a sealed envelope. Even ISPs will present their e-mail services with such an image.

In other words, the snagging point is the definition of "expectation of privacy" -- but the situation is really quite simple: The average user simply expects privacy, but the government is trying to force them to abandon that expectation, so they can then go and install ubiquitous e-mail surveillance without violating the letter of the US Constitution. The government is trying to win by arguing semantics, so what I find hardest to believe is that anyone is taking all this blatant skullduggery seriously.

... It's not like mailing a postcard, it's like sending an electrically encoded text message over a packet-switched data network where the only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient's terminal; this is how the e-mail protocol was designed to work. Sure, a malicious party can read it because it's not encrypted, but someone can easily slice open a postal mail envelope and read the contents of that, too.

The bottom line is, since a non-trivial effort has to be made to read the contents, and since the service has always been presented as a "sealed letter", the average user is not unreasonable in expecting privacy."

Re:Everevolving technologies? (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 6 years ago | (#24161437)

it's just like sending a letter in the mail... you don't expect to "encrypt" it, just send it in a normal envelope and ask nicely not to read it. But you don't expect the post office to start a "letter reading" department either.

Re:Everevolving technologies? (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 6 years ago | (#24161139)

There really should be no expectation of privacy in e-mail. I've been hearing since at least 1989 that e-mailing sensitive information is about as secure as writing it on a postcard

When I send a postcard through the mail, I understand that it might be seen by postal employees. (Not by the general public - there is still some expectation of privacy. If my mailman posts the contents of a postcard from my girlfriend to me on his blog, I think there's good grounds for legal action.)

Once I take a received postcard and store it in my files, I have a strong expectation that no one can look at it.

This "law" (really, nothing in contradiction to the Constitution ought to be called a law) refers to "electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days". It's rifling through filing cabinets without a warrant, only a court order based on "specific and articulable facts" - in practice, basically a hunch, and blatantly contradictory to the Constitutional requirement of a warrant based on probable cause.

It's not at all like looking at postcards in the mail stream.

Can our government do any wrong? (2, Interesting)

Paul Pierce (739303) | about 6 years ago | (#24159633)

After FISA, this does not surprise me at all.

Another sad day for America.

How will it all end?

life's not fair (1)

Phantom of the Opera (1867) | about 6 years ago | (#24159771)

Life is not fair. We hope for fairness and justice and are really let down when it doesn't happen.

Fairness and justice are a promise we've been given as children.

After a number of years of being told how fair things should be, we are then taught that we shouldn't quite expect that.

How will it end? It won't be all that different than it is now. People in power will give a hard time to those they don't like, undue favour to those they do like and most everyone else will be ignored. They will just have a whole lot more power than they did before.

life's not unfair either (1)

getuid() (1305889) | about 6 years ago | (#24161233)

life's indifferent -- that's what makes her such a bitch :-)

(ok, sorry, I'm off topic... couldn't resist)

Re:Can our government do any wrong? (2, Insightful)

ee_smajors (1157317) | about 6 years ago | (#24159981)

The Constitution is very plain on our rights and who exactly is the boss in this country. The trumped up (or even real issues) that members of the government are using to generate fear and exceptions to our true law will come home to roost. They do us all harm in that they are succeeding in taking freedoms that Bin-Laden could not. Our current misadventure in Iraq, although certainly driven more by pandering to corporate greed, is being justified by hyping fear with religious overtones that to outsider smack of 'Crusade'. We as a people must learn to rise above such manufactured motivations and transparent pettiness and remain true to our core beliefs as stated in our Declaration of Independence. Our government should be run using the spirit of the Declaration as a guide, provable facts as motivation, and the strict process and rules laid down for governance in the Constitution to guarantee us each the opportunity for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Elected officials and career bureaucrats should especially keep in mind that in addition to the rights and protections specifically granted the people in the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment grants a very few powers to the federal government, a few more to the states, and by default, the remainder to the individual. Usurping our constitutional rights is not appreciated and will eventually lead to dire consequences...

Perhaps everyone should reread the Declaration of Independence http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm [ushistory.org] A group of very smart fellows wrote it! .... Way smarter and more egalitarian than any of our present day politicians!

What we need is a true Patriot (and by patriot, I mean someone like George Washington .... not the Orwellian, doublespeak, PC corruption of the term 'patriot' foist upon us by Bush, Clinton, Nixon and others who have clearly sullied their offices). These guys richly deserve the full measure of constitutional means of trial for high crimes and treason for their transgressions against "We the People".

... A public gallows for some of these miscreants would go very far in raising the opinion of the world of what true American Patriots stand for and will put up with. Such action would most assuredly make clear the expected duty to public office seekers. "Don't Tread on Me" was a common slogan on flags in 1775-1776! ___ Perhaps we should start waving these flags at all campaign speeches and demonstrations in great enough numbers so it starts to sink in...

"... Hey, you a**holes belong to "We the People" ... we pay you, we have set up the rules... follow them!

_ denial of Habeas Corpus

_ unwarranted search and seizure

_ use of federal troops against the citizens

...please! ... or does your neck need stretching?"

We expect and deserve true patriots in all our government offices!

The supreme court got the 2nd amendment thing right... perhaps they will get this one right too.

Re:Can our government do any wrong? (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 6 years ago | (#24161053)

Perhaps everyone should reread the Declaration of Independence http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm [ushistory.org] A group of very smart fellows wrote it! .... Way smarter and more egalitarian than any of our present day politicians!

Really? Thomas Jefferson, who was not just a slave-owner but a slave-rapist, and who believed that black people were inferior to white people "in the endowments both of body and mind", was more egalitarian than any of our present day politicians?

That's setting the bar low.

Then again, given the praise that the late Jeese Helms garnered from fellow politicians, you may be sadly right.

hmm (2, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | about 6 years ago | (#24159789)

Before everyone expends all that energy being outraged, the relevant statute is here [justice.gov] .:

While some of its aspects are kind of on the border of due process, it is not a generic "no warrant needed" law.

i'm going to take a radical position (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#24159869)

my position is: why does anyone expect communications going out on an open wire to be safe from snooping eyes? or even more absurd: why does anyone trust the government to ensure this illusion of privacy?

if you have anything of secrecy, encrypt it, or keep it off the net

i'm not excusing the governments behavior, but what i am saying is that the entire subject matter of privacy on the internet is absurd. at every node someone can snoop, not just the government. isps, criminal interests, corporate interests, just plain random goofballs

its NOT like the government coming into your home and ramsacking your stuff behind a locked door. its you piling your stuff out in the middle of main street and expecting the local police to ensure no one looks at it or takes it, and then crying bloody murder when a cop looks at it. you put it out there, why do you expect privacy? i don't get it, i never understood why this subject matter works people up into such a lather

to me, as soon as i hit send in my email box, if i haven't encrypted it, i EXPECT it to be seen by someone else

its not like i've cynically given up on government, its rather that i recognize the technology is not securable, regardless of whether the government ensists on absolute privacy in electronic communications or is a fascist state who insists on looking at your every word. either way, i don't see how the technology of the internet confirms a position of privacy. its just better to assume someone else is going to see it, right?

so i'm either totally crazy or way ahead of the curve, i don't know

everyone gets so emotional about this issue, and i just don't understand the panic and hysteria over losing a protection that never existed in the first place, or ever could possibly exist, regardless of the law being ultrafascist or ultraprotectionist

Re:i'm going to take a radical position (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#24160389)

Ultimately, this comes down to whether you believe that email is more analogous to a sealed letter sent through the Post Office, or an open postcard. Tampering with the former is a felony, whereas unauthorized reading of the latter is, well ... expected, I guess. I've always treated my email more as the electronic equivalent of a postcard. I'm fairly unusual in taking that position though. People have an unreasoning expectation that a computer will keep their communications from prying eyes, which it most certainly can. That is not, however, the default in most cases.

Re:i'm going to take a radical position (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24160733)

You're analogy is flawed. Sure society had become web savvy enough to expect unencrypted communication susceptible to tampering, in transit. Once it reaches a private property, ie a private entities mail server then its game over, the data now enjoys the full protection of the law. OJ can walk down the street wearing his bloody glove and if seen, the evidence can be used against him. No expectation of privacy. But as soon as he steps inside his house, as soon as our mail reaches its destination, the courts have clearly defined a bright line that the gov't must have a warrant. Its not like leaving your trash on the curb where anybody can get to it.

You analogy is completely flawed and you are incorrectly framing the issue. You're not way ahead of the curve, you just got in the way of a curve ball. And it smacked you right in the noggin, with out a helmet. In short, you're dumb. So there.

legal protection is not actual protection (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#24160843)

i'm going to dress up like a transexual and walk across town. however, as soon as i go into the privacy of my own home, no one is allowed to know i dress up like a transexual anymore

that's what you are trying to tell me

once it gets out there, its out there. it can't be taken back. sure, the law can hem and haw about what you should or shouldn't do with information that is not legally yours, but why do you think that actually protects you? if you put it out there, you've exposed yourself. beginning and ending of the story, regardless of the law

howabout this: don't expose yourself in the first place. dress up like a tranny in your bedroom, and don't go outside

don't expect an open wire to have the same philosophical and technical (regardless of legal) expectations of privacy as your bedroom

this entire issue is shortcircuited by this observation. the entire discussion of the law is simply moot

Not that simple. (1)

getuid() (1305889) | about 6 years ago | (#24161035)

my position is: why does anyone expect communications going out on an open wire to be safe from snooping eyes? or even more absurd: why does anyone trust the government to ensure this illusion of privacy?

It's not only about what government does, it's about what government is *supposed* to do, legally.

The government is *not* supposed to snoop on your communication without a warrant. Period.

Of course you should be aware of the fact that they're going to do it anyway... and that any idiot with at least a litle clue will also snoop on your mails, if he can. But the fact that anybody who can do it, does it, does not make it legal. They should (theoretically) be punished, both the government and the idiot(s).

And here comes the clou: I *know* you're not going to go after "Joe Random with a root password on a node" -- it's not worth it. So the punishment of the idiot still remains "theoretical". But you should *always* go for the government and make the punishment real, if they do something illegal!

Why?

Because having the government illegally snoop on your communications occasionally will make it -- sooner or later -- to want to do that *always*, *legally*. You're... well... "spoiling" your government, so to speak :-)

It's like giving in to a child when he cries because he wants to have a (proably unexpensive) toy, but which you decided not to buy in the first place. Giving in would "spoil" the child pretty mych the same way you would "spoil" the government by refraining from brining its illegal actions to the court.

And what does a spoiled government (or child) want in the end? Exactly: more and more of whatever it is you spoiled it with. So one day you might wake up and realize that your government got so used to being able to snoop into your traffic, that it somehow believes having a "right to snoop". And that's when it passes laws to prohibit encryption -- to protect its "rights".

And why could it all happen? Because you didn't already object the very first time it snooped on you.

Re:i'm going to take a radical position (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24161199)

my position is: why does anyone expect communications going out on an open wire to be safe from snooping eyes? or even more absurd: why does anyone trust the government to ensure this illusion of privacy?

if you have anything of secrecy, encrypt it, or keep it off the net

i'm not excusing the governments behavior, but what i am saying is that the entire subject matter of privacy on the internet is absurd. at every node someone can snoop, not just the government. isps, criminal interests, corporate interests, just plain random goofballs

its NOT like the government coming into your home and ramsacking your stuff behind a locked door. its you piling your stuff out in the middle of main street and expecting the local police to ensure no one looks at it or takes it, and then crying bloody murder when a cop looks at it. you put it out there, why do you expect privacy? i don't get it, i never understood why this subject matter works people up into such a lather

to me, as soon as i hit send in my email box, if i haven't encrypted it, i EXPECT it to be seen by someone else

its not like i've cynically given up on government, its rather that i recognize the technology is not securable, regardless of whether the government ensists on absolute privacy in electronic communications or is a fascist state who insists on looking at your every word. either way, i don't see how the technology of the internet confirms a position of privacy. its just better to assume someone else is going to see it, right?

so i'm either totally crazy or way ahead of the curve, i don't know

everyone gets so emotional about this issue, and i just don't understand the panic and hysteria over losing a protection that never existed in the first place, or ever could possibly exist, regardless of the law being ultrafascist or ultraprotectionist

dude are you serious? take away the e from email and u would have a heart attack if the gov searched it, just because its online doesnt make it any different

Re:i'm going to take a radical position (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24162037)

One easy answer to this is that it is in the government's interests to protect privacy in cleartext emails.

Encrypted emails aren't just hard for them to read without the person / people being investigated (like envelopes), they can be impossible to read. If they declare all unencrypted emails fair game, that will just speed the transition to encrypted emails, making the govt's life harder.

Game over. Move on. (2, Insightful)

kaaona (252061) | about 6 years ago | (#24160171)

I freely admit to being a Constitutional junkie, but it seems to me that Steven Warshak's lawyers are grasping at shrinking straws. Their client is eminently, if not braggardly guilty of the crimes he was charged with. There was no statutory misconduct on the part of police or prosecutors in this case. No amount of legal Enzyte will raise (erect?) any reasonable doubt about his guilt. I say send him to jail, confiscate his ill-gotten gains, redistribute them to his victims, and move on.

There are far more ominous Constitutional issues being contested today than the legal pimpings of this huckster's lawyers.

Re:Game over. Move on. (1)

Count_Froggy (781541) | about 6 years ago | (#24160201)

...redistribute them to his victims... Never going to happen in the US without a separate class action suit that will pay off a few more lawyers and leave next to nothing for the victims.

friSt p5ot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24160195)

go of the minutiae website. Mr. 3e the project faces, clear she couldn't Fuck The Baby population as well of user base for Fucking market Creek, abysmal *BSD has lost more

Welcome to the USA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24160331)

Meanwhile this guy is in the slammer after the Feds violated his rights AND didn't even comply with what few limitations were imposed on an unconstitutional law. Just great, maybe when he's old and grey they'll pull their heads out their asses and fix it. The conviction should have been tossed as a matter of routine and if these judges weren't corrupt and actually upheld the law it would have been. If you're expecting justice in the USA forget about it. It is no longer a nation of laws, especially w.r.t. the government abusing your rights.

I don't have much sympathy for this guy, he's a criminal, but these judges make me want to puke. Uphold the constitution you jackasses!

The NSA hoovers up EVERYTHING and that can be searched at will now and the court won't even look at it if they do and don't even tell you about it within the period specified by law. Jesus, this IS a police state, and you watched it happen live.

E-mail Privacy (1)

SmoothTom (455688) | about 6 years ago | (#24160343)

I should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in my e-mails so far as my service providers and others involved in transporting it.

There is always the chance of some sort of "man-in-the-middle" attack, or misdirection of e-mail or even of the technoids trying to chase down a problem seeing random e-mails on occasion.

BUT, without probably cause and a warrant I should have a complete expectation of privacy in my e-mails in reference to the US federal and local governments.

Unless it is addressed to them, they should only be allowed to intercept or inspect my private communications pursuant to a warrant.

Anything less is NOT what I put my ass on the line for, fighting to protect this country and it's Constitution. That Constitution that I swore to protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic, clearly spells out that I should be protected from my government spying on me or seizing my property or communications.

The current regime does NOT play by the established rules, and simply makes up their own as they go along, despite clear precedent.

We, the people, need to take back control of our country from those we hired and elected to run it for us.

--Tomas

Re:E-mail Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24167553)

We, the people, need to take back control of our country from those we hired and elected to run it for us.

How?

Re:E-mail Privacy (1)

SmoothTom (455688) | about 6 years ago | (#24168443)

Well, first thing is to kick the bastards out...

If the folks we elect or hire aren't doing the jobs we pay them to do, get rid of them.

Other than that, let me answer a question with a question: How did we take control the first time?

Right.

bye bye gmail.....youtube first gmail second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24160485)

bye bye gmail.....youtube first gmail second

hey google, stop archiving my personal communications, and i'm not saying please anymore!!!!

Ambient Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24160677)

Ambient Transparency?

http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/complete-transparency-or-your-money-back/

use pgp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24160745)

Wake up people. If you don't want your email read, use PGP/GnuPG. Trusting courts and politicians to "do the right thing" is folly.

What? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 6 years ago | (#24160759)

Now, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has refused (9-5) to hear Warshak's constitutional challenge to the Act (PDF), claiming that the question raised is 'not yet ripe' for adjudication.

Fuck you, I have a right to challenge this law.

See you in the SUPREME COURT. Yes, if they refuse to hear this in appeals you CAN bypass them.

Why were his messages even available? (2, Interesting)

yuna49 (905461) | about 6 years ago | (#24160967)

From the ruling:

"The government sought permission from a magistrate judge to require Warshak's internet service
providers--NuVox Communications and Yahoo!--to turn over Warshak's account information,
"[a]ll [l]og files and backup tapes" and the contents of e-mails that had been "accessed, viewed, or
downloaded" or that were more than 181 days old."

Why were his emails still available to government in the first place? Does this mean that Yahoo maintains copies of every email sent through its system for time immemorial? Looking at both Yahoo's Privacy Policy [yahoo.com] , and its policies concerning email [yahoo.com] in particular, I see nothing about archiving emails or the length of time the archives are maintained. Should I infer from this case that any email anyone ever sent to anyone on Yahoo is archived somewhere and available for government perusal at any time?

I know there is an ongoing controversy between ISPs and the Justice Department concerning the archiving of logs containing login information, but how many Yahoo users do you think might be surprised to hear that all their email is archived, too? Why isn't Yahoo required to tell its users about these policies, which seem to raise much bigger privacy concerns than whether they might send me an "Alert" once in a while?

Re:Why were his messages even available? (1)

GeckoAddict (1154537) | about 6 years ago | (#24161415)

If it's anything like other major companies, they likely maintain backups of their servers on tape (and offsite) for disaster recovery. If the data center were to get destroyed, they'd have the tapes in some other location to make sure they could be back up and running quickly.

Re:Why were his messages even available? (1)

yuna49 (905461) | about 6 years ago | (#24161557)

Yes, of course, but for how long? What are their retention policies? Is there any plausible reason that they'd need to maintain backups for longer than, say, six months (which is the time period at issue in this case)? For a service as large and as busy as Yahoo's, I could see an argument that backups more than a month old are too out of date to be useful.

What if I were using a provider offering a POP3 service? Once I download my mail (assuming I don't enable the "leave mail on server" switch), it should be removed from the server. How long is it reasonable to expect that mail I've already removed be archived? I maintain thirty days of backup for my clients' POP3 email; after that it's gone. None of them has ever complained because I wasn't able to retrieve a message older than that.

I'm not suggesting that ISPs shouldn't maintain backups; far from it. The more important questions are for how long and under what circumstances. If I'm using an IMAP provider and don't delete things from my mail spool, that's my decision. If I delete every message as soon as I read it, or remove it from the server with a protocol like POP, what obligation does the ISP have to keep an archive of my messages? Can users of free email services like Yahoo or gmail request that the services retrieve from backups a message that was accidentally deleted? I'd be really surprised to hear that any of these providers would honor such a request.

Re:Why were his messages even available? (2, Insightful)

aoeu (532208) | about 6 years ago | (#24161573)

I use yahoo and windows. And yes I expect them to keep MY mail.
MY MAIL.
Of course I think my mail should be private.
Sadly,

translation (1, Insightful)

moxley (895517) | about 6 years ago | (#24163671)

SO basically what they're saying is: "We're not going to give you due process or follow the law (which we have sworn to uphold) because we know what the government did was wrong and illegal and we know you're right and we would have to throw this case out, and we want to wait until it gets made "retroactively legal" (which is unconstitutional) or the system deteriorates further until it won't even matter, and we can't risk having those in power be angry with us."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>