Slashdot Mirror
Court Refuses To Rule On ECPA Warrantless E-mail Searches
utkalum writes "After Steven Warshak's indictment and conviction on charges of mail and wire fraud, money laundering and other federal charges, he learned that key evidence in the case was obtained by the government under a 1986 law permitting no-warrant searches of email communications stored for longer than 180 days. He also learned that, despite the Electronic Communication Privacy Act's requirement that such searches be disclosed to the suspect no more than 90 days after they were commenced, the Government simply couldn't be bothered to comply. Now, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has refused (9-5) to hear Warshak's constitutional challenge to the Act (PDF), claiming that the question raised is 'not yet ripe' for adjudication.
It's worth noting that the court also vacated an earlier injunction against using that act to read the e-mail of other people in Warshak's district. Read on for an excerpt from the ruling.
'Not only do "we have no idea whether or when" such a search will occur but we also "have
no idea" what e-mail accounts, or what types of e-mail accounts, the government might investigate ... That uncertainty looms large in a debate about the expectations of privacy in e-mail accounts. The underlying merits issue in the case
is this: In permitting the government to search e-mails based on "reasonable grounds," is 2703(d)
consistent with the Fourth Amendment, which generally requires "probable cause" and a warrant
in the context of searches of individuals, homes and, perhaps most analogously, posted mail? The
answer to that question will turn in part on the expectations of privacy that computer users have in
their e-mails — an inquiry that may well shift over time, that assuredly shifts from internet-service
agreement to internet-service agreement and that requires considerable knowledge about everevolving
technologies.'
This doesn't apply at the White House, apparently they don't archive their email
thats because they archive yours and their political enemies oh and those juicy insider stock tips (they are not millionaires for nothing)
If you are breaking the law, then you are the bad guys. I can't be arsed right now, but I wonder how many of the "federal" judges who just lied about the ripeness of this 4th Amendment question were Bush appointees. I have personal experience at this level and have found his judges (yep, I call them his judges) do not believe the Constitution is anything more than a piece of paper. Of course, that's just what Bush believes (and has stated for the public record).
On the other hand, Bush is a convicted criminal. So sometimes the courts get things right.
Yeah you and all of the other 911 conspiracy theorists. The only thing you forgot to mention was that the government did 911, and Bush and others are all members of the New World Order that made the Constitution and all other laws null and void. Also that McCain or Obama will gladly serve as Bush's third term in office because they are secretly controlled by the NWO as well.
Don't give yourself too much credit, the Internet is full of people who really are capable of coming up with such bullshit. Just that by now, it is getting really boring and predictable.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
First, "Wrong!"
Also, this.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.