Slashdot Mirror
EFF Warns That Email Privacy Is In Jeopardy
MojoKid writes with this excerpt from HotHardware:
"According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a
dangerous legal precedent has just been set that can potentially unravel existing federal privacy protections for e-mail and Internet usage. The alert from the EFF is not just to sound a general warning, but it also takes the form of an Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, filed with the federal 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, asking for the court's legal finding to be overturned... The findings of this case
could become the foundation of a legal precedent upon which other similar cases can subsequently be based. If that were to be the case, then the unauthorized retrieving of e-mails from an e-mail server would not be considered a violation of the federal Wiretap Act, which
will then open the door for government-sponsored snooping."
I've NEVER considered email to have been private: encrypted or not.
Even if breaking in houses is illegal, I still have a lock on my door. Why? Because some people don't care about the law.
Even if snooping on e-mail is illegal, you still need to encrypt your mails. Why? Because some governments don't care about the law.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Of course we should take technical precautions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop this through legal action either. It seems like a Sisyphean task at this point, but we have to hold firm to our principles nonetheless.
Fnord.
Even if the ISP or whomever cannot share or pry into email for whatever reason, what's to prevent someone from accidentally hitting "reply all" or copying their entire address book and sending it out to the world? That's what I meant by my original statement. It's not so much folks prying, it's "accidents" that I'm worried about.
I have discussed this issue with some friends who seem to believe that Obama will reverse the current warrantless surveillance practices. If history is to serve as a guide, it seems clear that he will not. I am convinced that contacting our legislators and voting for Democrats are two of the least effective means of protecting our rights. Indeed, the most effective way of protecting our rights is by asserting them. We as Americans have the responsibility of actively protecting our rights, rather than depending on the ineptitude and conflicted interests of our elected officials. This is why I propose not only opportunistic encryption, but also what I call gratuitous encryption. This means the ubiquitous use and advocacy of PGP, SSH, SSL, VPNs, tor, full disk encryption, and every other tool we have at our disposal.
Check out this page for ways to assert your rights.
How is unencrypted email different to a postcard?
Look, the fact that postcards and most emails are sent in plaintext isn't what this is about.
So far as I'm aware, the United States Post Office doesn't scan, OCR, and store the contents of every postcard that goes through its facilities. If they did, and then made that information available to the government or anyone else that wanted it, you would have a point. In other words, unencrypted does not mean "indexed, cross-indexed and searchable."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Grabbing a message from the stream is not that hard. Yes.
Getting access to a pile of email that was sent over the course of days to years, I believe, is a much bigger issue. The stream takes good timing, access and preparation. Access to inbox or other folders of an entire email collection is scary. If the private sign leaves the stored email it will allow providers to do what they will with these email documents in the collections of users. Sending a message to a friend about a need for a product could turn into a barrage of ads for same or competing products. Storing old messages with idle threats with a buddy could turn into law suits. There could be corporate theft of ideas and more. How about getting fired from a job for idle discussions of other things you think about regarding other lines of work or even a competing company. Then there are the criminal cases that could be setup against you for some idle "what-if" messages with a child, friend, or co-worker. Information and insight about an individual could cause all kinds of difficulties in the wrong hands. If I wanted someone to be party to a conversation, I would have sent the message to that party when I wrote it.
Email server ownership is a big help in these times. "Guilty until proven Innocent" is the opponent of privacy laws and practice. I do not have the time to waste proving every little aspect of my life was not a crime just because someone came into a conversation late, reading their own storyline into my existence. As it is now in consumer America, I have to open boxes at the checkout counter just to ensure the actual item purchased is in the box, and not just floor tiles. I also have to call phone and credit companies over charges that were added in error. Do I need to mention the corrections on food from a drive through, even after seeing the list in perfect order on the screen before getting to the window?
Do not add to my itinerary, as it is full.