Slashdot Mirror
11th Circuit Eliminates 4th Amend. In E-mail
Artefacto writes "Last Thursday, the Eleventh Circuit handed down a Fourth Amendment case, Rehberg v. Paulk, that takes a very narrow view of how the Fourth Amendment applies to e-mail. The Eleventh Circuit held that constitutional protection in stored copies of e-mail held by third parties disappears as soon as any copy of the communication is delivered. Under this new decision, if the government wants get your e-mails, the Fourth Amendment lets the government go to your ISP, wait the seconds it normally takes for the e-mail to be delivered, and then run off copies of your messages."
No. The only one that's really left appears to be the Third, which prevents the quartering of soldiers in private homes.
I am officially gone from
Agreed. But the kicker here, is if EITHER PARTY uses ISP hosted email, then the message is fair game here. So even if I run my own email server, I still probably won't be protected... Yet another right bites the dust in the name of misunderstanding...
I wonder if the same could be said for people who get snail mail delivered to a Post Office Box? It's "delivered" via a third party (albeit one sanctioned by the government)... What about phone calls that go through an intermediary (Like VOIP or forwarding services)? What about telegrams? They all rely on the same concept that the message is delivered via an intermediary, so why aren't they "fair game" as well?
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
Will google now pull out of the US?
I need to actually read the case, but:
1. Alice sends Bob a message
2. Bob decides to post the message on Facebook or even, the police ask Bob for the message and Bob says: Sure here you go!
3. Alice has no expectation of privacy from Bob because she chose to send him the message.
The above situation is already well established as being perfectly fine from long before the time of the Internet. The meaning of the term "Third Party" is at issue here, and third party does *not* necessarily mean your ISP. Look at the stored communications act for the rules on how email is treated by law enforcement. If you send your email to somebody (the "third party") that somebody can choose to hand it over to anyone. However, this isn't any different than sending a letter over the Pony Express and having the person you sent the letter to read it in the town square for everyone to here.
Moral of the story: If you don't trust a third party, don't send them information!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I think that one may have been abused during the Civil War, so even that one has been violated. It just hasn't been continuously violated.
SSC
I would go further, write a haiku for your signature, register the copyright, put a copy right notice in the message and encrypt all of your mail. Decrypting a copyrighted work and making multiple copies, runs a foul of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other copyright laws.
When I make a phone call, I don't expect privacy either. But I do expect my 4th amendment rights to be in force. So just because someone can tap in and listen, doesn't mean that the government can do so to gather evidence... And that's the subtle difference here. Just because "someone" can read what I sent, doesn't give the government the right to spy in on it.
I'll give you another example. You're in your back-yard at your house talking with a friend. Sure, neighbors can likely hear your conversation, so you don't have an unusual expectation of privacy. But, if a FBI agent is sitting in a tree 100 yards away with a sound amplifier pointed at you (and hence recording/listening in to your conversation), that would be an invasion of your 4th amendment rights. And privacy is relative (you even allude to it in your quote). The fact that "objectively reasonable" is used to qualify privacy shows that it's relative. In your back yard, you wouldn't expect someone to explicitly listen in to your conversation (unless you were yelling). Conversely, if you were on a crowded train, you wouldn't expect any type of privacy from verbal communication (But you would expect a reasonable level of privacy if you were typing on your computer on said train). That's the difference. Not if there is any form of privacy, but if there is a reasonable expectation given the circumstances...
JMHO...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
I know it's popular to think that the government is taking more and more of our rights away, but I don't see how that's the case. For example, in 2008, the Supreme Court dramatically broadened the scope of the Second Amendment to say that the federal government has virtually no power to institute any kind of gun control on federal property. This is obviously an increase in freedom over what had been settled law. The Supreme Court will soon be taking up the issue of whether or not state gun control is legal. I'd say our First Amendment rights have been greatly strengthened too over time. When John Adams was President, he arrested dozens of people for saying things he didn't like. Nowadays, we can say whatever we like about a President. Not only that, it's a lot easier to get an audience, thanks to the Internet. The list goes on and on.
Can you explain how, exactly, our freedoms are less than they formerly were?
You miss the purpose of his campaign. It was not for fun -- it was to demoralize the heart of the insurgency. And it worked, however nauseating it may be in hindsight.
This sort of ends-justify-the-means, history-is-written-by-the-victors mentality is insufficient justification for what should have been and should still be war crimes. I'm a very hawkish, unilateral guy, but in order to have moral authority it is necessary to be 'better' than your adversary. I agree that the South is not some saintly victim, they did their own evils not least of which was Andersonville. That is not justification for more evil. You can fight for the 'right' things the 'wrong' way, which includes the carpet bombing of Dresden and other German cities, the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, and the saturation bombing and other indiscriminant behavior in Vietnam.
It would have been better to draw out the conflict, even to a stalemate, than it is to have won by such efforts. It was a stained and sullied victory, which bred generations of continued emnity. If not for external forces (later wars) and homogenization driven in part by carpetbagging, there probably would have been another Civil War already, driven by the treatment of the South by the North (analogous in some way perhaps to the treatment of the Germans by the French after WWI being catalytic in priming German society to accept militarism and aggression leading to WW2).
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit