Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Says E-mail Not Protected By 4th Amendment
DustyShadow writes "In the case In re United States, Judge Mosman ruled that there is no constitutional requirement of notice to the account holder because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to e-mails under the third-party doctrine. 'When a person uses the Internet, the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all. The user is generally accessing the Internet with a network account and computer storage owned by an ISP like Comcast or NetZero. All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an ISP. When we send an e-mail or instant message from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our computer to computers owned by a third party, the ISP, before being delivered to the intended recipient. Thus 'private' information is actually being held by third-party private companies."" Updated 2:50 GMT by timothy: Orin Kerr, on whose blog post of yesterday this story was founded, has issued an important correction. He writes, at the above-linked Volokh Conspiracy, "In the course of re-reading the opinion to post it, I recognized that I was misreading a key part of the opinion. As I read it now, Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected (see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers."
Wow, best to stop using FedEx and other *private* companies to send mail then.
How we know is more important than what we know.
As a bit of an aside, does it matter if you try to make the data private via encryption?
There could be an interesting relationship here: If you claim (probably rightfully) that you own the copyright to the 'content' in question, and encrypt it, does this mean that it would be unlawful for anyone to try and decrypt it under the DMCA?
I was thinking the same thing about safety deposit boxes.
So does the phone company regarding your phone calls. That doesn't mean that there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I rent an apartment, am I fucked as well?
Occasionally I am just absolutely struck fuck-dumb by the sheer level of pants on head retardedness displayed in decisions like this. Then I realise the 1st and 2nd amendments come into play.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Tacit approval? I cannot agree. Most people consider their email to be the same as their real mail. There is no reasonable cause to consider the technical details of the email process as the common user has no knowledge of such details and typically believes his email is secure whether or not that is actually the case.
This judge is simply wrong to assert that the technical details disqualifies email from having 4th amendment protection.
FedEx has the same access to the contents of the mail as an email host provider has to read a user's email. One has but to access it. We "trust" FedEx not to tamper with or damage our mail. We "trust" email service providers not to tamper with or damage our email. I see no cause for technical details to play as a factor primarily because the constitution makes no qualifications for protection and it is not for legislators, judges or presidents to add qualifications that aren't stated. I believe it is unconstitutional to attempt to do so.
And, following that logic, my banking details are not private because bank employees can read them, my medical details are not private because insurance company employees can read them, my phone calls are not private because telephone company employees can listen to them, etc..
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!