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. Address implies content by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From TFA

    ...the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, "it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed."

    The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. I think that his honor missed something here. He seems to be saying that knowing the address of a web page is like knowing the address on an envelope, and in either case the contents is not being snooped upon. In the case of the letter he would be right, for a letter can contain anything ( I could mail a recipe for braised goat's eyes to Bin Laden ).
    But a web address often has a 1-to-1 corespondence with its contents. Knowing the address is one simple - and undetectable - step from knowing the contents. They are doing an unconstitutional search here.
  2. Ninth Circuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Circuit Courts of Appeals only have jurisdiction over cases arising in their proper Circuit. This decision is not applicable anywhere but the Ninth Circuit.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thum b/d/df/US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map. svg/620px-US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_m ap.svg.png

    Editors, please.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.