Slashdot Mirror
Precedent for Warrantless Net Monitoring Set
highcon writes "According to this editorial from SecurityFocus, a recent case of a drug dog which pushed the limits of "reasonable search" may have implications for Internet communications in the U.S. This Supreme Court case establishes a precendent whereby "intelligent" packet filters may be deployed which, while scanning the contents of network traffic indiscriminently, only "bark" at communication indicative of illegal activity."
As this anonymous post on security focus points out:
The obvious error in this analysis is that the relevant privacy protections that apply online are statutory, not constitutional. So they are unaffected by Caballes.
My pics.
Kerry would have had absolutely zero effect on this decision whatsoever, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that someone who wishes to make that connection would himself not have clue one about the Constitution.
Amendment 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No, they wouldn't get their asses handed to them. Cops do it all time time in DUI checkpoints.
My father-in-law, who is an ex-cop, once explained to me that DUI checkpoints are legal as long as the cars are searched in a pre-determined sequence (every other car, every sixth car, whatever.) Still seems unconstituional to me, but that's the law here in PA.
Why wait? Start now with GPG / PGP on your email.
... but I've done my part.
... they'd have to go back to doing what they have always done ... wait for some sort of evidence by other means.
I have advertised my public key for years. No one has ever used it
Do yours.
If all email was encrypted there is NO way that law enforcement officers could decrypt it all. Nope
Do a google search for "Pen Registers" or "Tap and Trace". Apparently, back before the internet, the government decided that they didn't need a warrant to put a little device on people's phone lines that just gave them a list of the numbers that were called and recieved, as long as it didn't monitor the conversation.
This carries over to email. The FBI can request a list of everyone your email account emailed, and everyone that emailed you without a warrant. Yahoo has at least 6 employees who's entire job is to just give this information to the government all day. The figure I heard was about 1 request per thousand users per year.
You may say, "great, I use my own domain for email", but once 1/2 of all email goes to Yahoo, MSN, Google, and AOL, all the governement has to do is ask them a list of 1/2 the people you emailed.
I'm surpised that this doesn't bother more people. I mean, chances are it happened to a few slashdot users today.
Fine, true enough about Carnivore's retirement. If you want to be pedantic, do this on my post: :%s/Carnivore/tcpdump/g ...or Ethereal, or any other packet sniffer/logger. Throw in some AI to parse all those packets and check for data the feds would consider "of interest".
Happy? My main point remains regardless of the technology the FBI chooses...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Well, what about the other two prongs to be considered?...
1)Dog sniffed out marijuana during a legitimate traffic stop.
2)Whether there's a legitimate privacy interest being protected.
The first prong would still require some appropriate reason ('probable cause' created by dog) to investigate an individual's packets, and only until a reasonable point (free from being unduly detained) under the Fourth Amendment.
Admittedly, an automated packet sniffer might fit this definition, although whether such a sniffer would be 'sui generis' like the dog, I don't know, but I suspect not. [Here is where a law review article might be useful.]
Second, the case here is over possession of drugs, whereas packets may be more like communication that would be entitled to constitutional privacy interests.
Besides, SCOTUS did decide to determine the question narrowly, saying "The question on which we granted certiorari, 541 U.S. 972, 159 L. Ed. 2d 84, 124 S. Ct. 2219 (2004), is narrow: "Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop."" limiting its potential application to online packet sniffing.