Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Upholds Warrantless Internet Snooping

Posted by kdawson on from the repeat-after-me-you-have-no-expectation dept.

amigoro writes to let us know about an appeals court ruling on Friday that holds that federal agents can snoop on an individual's web surfing, email and all other forms of Internet communication habits without a warrant. The court found recording this kind of information to be analogous to the use of a pen register. In 1979 the Supreme Court ruled that this technique did not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.

4 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. The price of Freedom ... by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People died for the Freedom that too many of us seem willing to trade away.

    If the worst thing that happens to you is some jail time because you refused to reveal your keys, consider yourself ahead of the game.

    Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.

    1. Re:The price of Freedom ... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, Fascism begins when people decide that fighting Communism is more important than protecting rights.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  2. Re:Maybe it is the same. But I'm not convinced. by bobdotorg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Encryption. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

    Until they illegalize it. Or, as I understand England has done, simply make it illegal to withhold your keys from government agents.

    Even in the scenario where you are required to surrender your keys, encryption is still quite useful in the context of this article / warrantless searches. The authorities would need a warrant to make you surrender your keys, and you would know you were being spied upon.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  3. Possibly. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is efficient law enforcement? That's when the cops catch bad guys with a minimum of fuss and a minimum of disruption to the lives of the ordinary citizenry.

    The way I look at it, if you could catch one more "bad guy" a day ... just by skipping some of the procedures and processes that we have to protect our Rights ... how many people would support that?

    Lots.

    As opposed to Ben Franklin's:

    That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.

    They'd rather follow Otto Bismark's opinion:

    It is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape.

    The problem is that it is the Government that chooses what "crime" and what "evidence" will be used to charge a person.

    And the Government is composed of people. Sometimes honourable. Many times petty and vindictive if not outright criminals. Which is why our country was founded upon the belief that you cannot trust the Government. That we had to limit the Government's authority and protect the Rights of the People.

    It's all about how you view Rights and whether you are with Franklin or Bismark.