Slashdot Mirror
Browsing Privacy - Off With Your Headers!
andyo writes: "Incredible assertion in this Wired article that 'Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the identities of their e-mail correspondents, or the addresses of Web pages they visit.' Cites two senators who I'd thought to be more clueful (Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer)." Sure, the FBI should be able to check out every URL I visit without a warrant. They'll never abuse that power.
Umm im a member of the democratic party and im a christian - thanks for playing
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Your phone land line in an unencrypted, insecure wire. With some parts from Radioshack I could easily listen in to everything you have to say. But it's still protected by law.
Because in the absence of significant undertaking--actually going onto someone's property and planting the alligator clips on the junction box--the phone conversation is secure. In normal usage, phone conversations cannot be overheard by any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants. In normal usage, email can. Your analogy to phone lines falls apart right here.
Secondly, it is a serious violation of the law to do this. If you really want to do this, the FBI will be happy to come down to your house and stick a gun in your face and place you under arrest. Given that it requires a criminal act to eavesdrop on a landline, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy--it's axiomatic that you can reasonably expect people to follow the law. (Whether or not this legal axiom is correct is another story altogether.)
Other tidbit is that proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
Your cell phone is even easier to listen in to. But again, your conversations are protected by law.
No, they aren't. Cops don't need wiretaps to listen in on radiotelephone transmissions--you're *broadcasting*, and anyone with a receiver can listen in. Ever wonder why attorneys don't use cell phones for privileged attorney-client information? Because there is no recognized reasonable expectation of privacy on cell phones.
Cops often seek court orders for radiotelephony anyway, in the interests of making sure the information doesn't get bounced out of court--but in a strictly legal sense, they don't need to.
Again, proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
Paper mail is incredibly insecure. Open the envelope. But we prosecute the hell out of anyone who dares to do such a thing.
We have laws which require the confidentiality of the US Mail, and we have armed Postal Inspectors who will be more than happy to shove a gun in your face and place you under arrest if you try and violate this confidence. In light of the fact that the confidentiality of the mail is protected by Federal law, there is a very reasonable expectation of privacy in the mail.
Again, proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
I could bug your home with a little effort and a bit of technical know-how without ever having to walk through the front door. Just need some windows, is all. How much time do you think I'll spend in jail if I do it?
Given that this is, you guessed it, against the law, and that armed cops will be happy to shove a gun in your face and place you under arrest if you do it, there is a very reasonable expectation of privacy within one's own home.
Again, proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
In short, none of your examples hold water.