Slashdot Mirror


Government Has a Right to Read Your Email?

gone.fishing writes to tell us that a new lawsuit is challenging the government's right to read your e-mail. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is reporting that a seller of "natural male enhancement" products sued after a fraud indictment based on evidence gleaned from his electronic mail. Federal prosecutors say they don't need a search warrant to read your e-mail messages if those messages happen to be stored in someone else's computer."

3 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. What part of by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the Public Domain don't you understand?

    Like it or not, the Internet was built by the Federal Government- and it very much is the public domain. Any message sent across it unencrypted is just as much fair game for prosecutuion as taking a picture of you mooning other cars on the freeway.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:What part of by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like it or not, the Internet was built by the Federal Government- and it very much is the public domain. Any message sent across it unencrypted is just as much fair game for prosecutuion as taking a picture of you mooning other cars on the freeway.

      That's not the argument they're making. They're arguing that since you don't own the computer the message is stored on, you have no right to privacy.

      That makes no sense, however. I don't own the phone network once it leaves my house (more precisely, the NID), but I have a right to privacy as defined by quite a bit of legislation.

      Like it or not, the Internet was built by the Federal Government- and it very much is the public domain

      Don't know where to start with this one. First, when we talk about "public domain," we're talking copyrightable works. The internet isn't copyrightable. Second, the government doesn't own the individual links in the internet backbone.

      In short, I'm having a hard time seeing why an unsecured communication between two people should be protected when it's a phone conversation taking place over, say, Verizon-owned fiber, but not if it's an email saved on a Verizon-owned hard drive.

    2. Re:What part of by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if I send a work I've copyrighted through email, the ISP owns it?

      They own that copy- which you as the copyright owner freely gave them by ASKING THEIR E-MAIL SERVER TO MAKE A COPY!

      Damn! Should the Fed have the right to open your snail mail, too?

      They did with US Mail before they passed a bunch of laws making it illegal. They still have the right to open snail mail sent through FedEx, UPS, or a half dozen other private carriers.

      What's the difference?

      The difference is that the laws haven't been passed to make snooping on e-mail illegal. Or for that matter, UPS and FedEx packets.

      Even when in public, I have a right to reasonable privacy.

      Not by the Supreme Court, who ruled that you have NO reasonable expectation of privacy in the public sphere.

      For instance, it's illegal to take pictures up someone's skirt. UP their skirt, you know, from ground level? If someone happens to be leaving a car and wearing no undies, that's different.

      Yes, but that's a different special exception law- like the special exception of privacy in the US Mail. No such law has been passed for the Internet yet.

      You seem to be making up legal precedent to suit your argument. The internet is not "the public domain." How is it different than phone lines?

      The laws haven't been passed to make ISPs common carriers yet.

      I mean, your phone conversation passes through many different telcos and any of them could easily listen to your conversations, but this is illegal.

      Yes, but once again, special exception laws had to be passed to create that expectation of privacy in the public sphere.

      How is the Internet different?

      There aren't any laws creating privacy there yet.

      Don't ISPs have common carrier status, and doesn't that preclude them from monitoring your communications?

      No, ISPs do NOT have common carrier status- and they can do whatever the hell they want to as far as monitoring your communications are concerned.

      And doesn't the government have to play by different rules anyway?

      Yes, to a certain extent- but you can't smoke a joint in front of a policeman and expect not to get arrested either.

      In the US, our government is bound by the Constitution which precludes them from doing certain things that a company could do.

      True, but this isn't one of them, because the Internet wasn't created at the time the Constitution was. Neither were phones or the US Mail service- which is why special laws had to be passed by Congress to create privacy in that portion of the public sphere.

      In short, your argument makes no sense It almost seems as if you are being contrary just to be contrary. I can say that black is no different than white, but that won't make it so any more than your claims about our legal and governmental systems make them true.

      And claiming common carrier status for ISPs when no such law has been passed is just plain stupid.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.