Google Backs Yahoo In Privacy Fight With DoJ

PatPending sends in CNET coverage of Yahoo's new allies in its fight with the DoJ to protect the privacy of its customers' email stored in the cloud. Google, the EFF, the CDT, and others have filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the DoJ should be required to obtain a search warrant signed by a judge in order to compel Yahoo to turn over users' email messages. "Does email stored in the cloud have the same level of protection as the same information stored by a person at home? No, according to the Obama administration's Assistant US Attorney Pegeen Rhyne, who wrote in a government motion filed last month, 'Previously opened e-mail is not in "electronic storage." This court should therefore require Yahoo to comply with the order and produce the specified communications in the targeted accounts.' (The Justice Department's position is that what's known as a 2703(d) order — not as privacy-protective as the rules for search warrants — should let police read email.)" Update: 04/16 23:26 GMT by KD : he government backed off: "Saying the contested e-mail 'would not be helpful to the government’s investigation,' the authorities withdrew demands for e-mail in a pending and sealed criminal case." So no court ruling and no precedent.

Comments

Privacy

[kyrio]

Is in your imagination.

Re:Privacy

[Xaositecte]

your sig makes me hate you as a person.

4th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

But of course this is the internet, so it's different.

Re:4th Amendment

[Shakrai]

Clearly. If the framers had meant to include the internet in the 4th amendment it would have been worded along the lines of: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, series of tubes, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.....

Re:4th Amendment

[MikeBabcock]

Yeah, I'm quite certain (as are you I believe) that cloud storage of my E-mail which is obviously restricted to me via a password system would constitute my effects, just as much as a bank safety deposit box would.

Re:4th Amendment

[skine]

My email and safe deposit box are held by third parties, each of which has the ability to look inside.

I would hope that the government needs a warrant two inspect the contents of my safe deposit box, and more importantly, that my bank would not allow them access without a warrant.

The same goes for my email.

Did Google Find Its Balls?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Not trolling ... but Google seems to have found its balls again. It stood up to China and now its trying to stand up to the DoJ. Of course, backing Yahoo in this fight benefits Google as well. There's nothing wrong with protecting your own interests if you're also doing the right thing.

Re:Did Google Find Its Balls?

[will.perdikakis]

Interestingly enough, there are actually people that would be willing to give up the privacy of their email if it makes the world safer.

You hear it all the time... "I am willing to take more time going through airport security, since it will make the skies safer." This, along with many other one-liners roll our forefathers over.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin

Re:Did Google Find Its Balls?

[Shakrai]

You hear it all the time... "I am willing to take more time going through airport security, since it will make the skies safer."

I want to smack those morons. The only thing was required to prevent another 9/11 style attack was a locked cockpit door and the understanding that the pilots will LAND THE PLANE IMMEDIATELY if the shit hits the fan. The passengers and crew aren't going to roll over like sheep anymore. Every attack on an airline since 9/11 (and even on 9/11, see Flight 93) has been foiled by the passengers.

That's all we needed. No body scanners, no liquids ban, no forced removal of your shoes, no security theater at all. Just plain fucking common sense. The fact that we soon won't be able to board an airplane without some Government bureaucrat looking at our genitals on a computer monitor tells me that the terrorists won.

Re:Did Google Find Its Balls?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Since when is quoting Ben Franklin considered "trolling"? Sometimes the truth is the truth whether it hurts or not. There are things that we as Americans shouldn't be proud of, and watering down our individual rights should be one of them

Re:Did Google Find Its Balls?

[Runaway1956]

Well - why DID you think there were so many earthquakes? Our forefathers are having fits rolling over in their graves!

Re:Did Google Find Its Balls?

[ZippyTheWonderDog]

Google has always had plenty of balls. It stood up to gov when it asked for IP addresses in (supposed) child pornography case. The issue then was that it was overly broad, and *our* gov would not guarantee it would not use the info for other purposes. Google said "hell no" and went to court, and got the data anonymized and MUCH smaller amount. In the meantime, Y!, AOL, and Mr. Softee - no balls between 'em - had already complied. I think Google sincerely thought they could change China gradually from the inside, so that is why they allowed censorship (althought they did indicate that the data was censored). When they realized that was not going to work - that China was just getting bolder - they used the attack as a fake reason to back out. Balls all around at Google.

Re:Did Google Find Its Balls?

[bartoku]

I love your comment!

I always wondered why the cockpit was not just locked and all. Was it because most hijackings before were not suicide missions and procedure was to try and save the passengers by negotiation or something? Are there any authoritative sources saying what you are saying that I can reference?

Along the same lines a friend of mine would point out that the Empire State building stood up to a collision from a WW2 bomber plane and only lost three floors to fire. If we would just build are towers to withstand commercial airline collisions then we would not have to worry so much either. I am not being facetious either.

I want all the security theater done away with, guns, knifes, explosives, cell phones, let them bring them on the plane. The plane should be able to handle it and keep flying and us passengers can take care of the rest. I am just tired of taking off my shoes and taking out my laptop when it does not seem like it would stop anyone really wanting to blow something up.

constitutional law professor

[Shakrai]

I'm glad we elected someone with a through understanding of constitutional law and a healthy respect for our civil liberties. It's not like he reversed himself on the issue before even becoming President or anything....

Meet the new boss, same as the old. When will we learn? Vote Democrat or Republican -- the only difference is which order you will lose your rights in.

Re:constitutional law professor

[trurl7]

That reversal is the reason I dislike Obama.
I'm glad people still remember that!

Re:constitutional law professor

[Shakrai]

I had donated a sizable sum of money (nearly $500) to his campaign before that reversal. After the reversal I wrote them a pretty scathing letter and received a refund of my donation. I donated every penny to the EFF. They've never lied to me and I assumed they needed the money more than Obama for America did.

I still have an image of that check lying around somewhere. I was very proud of it.

Re:constitutional law professor

[WrongSizeGlass]

Ah, modded troll already. The truth hurts, doesn't it Democrats? Your guy is no better than the one that came before him with regards to our civil liberties.

I doubt there's more than a handful of politicians in DC who would do a "good" job protecting our rights civil liberties. I don't think this DoJ issue is a Republican vs Democrat issue. It's definitely an us (citizens) against them (the government) issue.

Re:constitutional law professor

[Wardish]

/tinfoil hat

One might wonder why all presidents appear to quickly move to the exact same positions regardless of their prior beliefs. /tinfoil hat off

One might wonder.... hehehehe

I find Google interesting

[al0ha]

On one hand they tell the users on their services to hold no expectation of privacy, then join a fight to keep information from the Government. Ah of course, providing information to the Government provides no profit. Hmmm I wonder how they would react if the Government offered to pay for the same information they are currently requesting be provided free?

What?

[MaWeiTao]

"Previously opened e-mail is not in electronic storage."

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. If these emails can be accessed at a later date they're obviously being stored somewhere. Now I lose my right to privacy because I've opened an email?

What exactly is the problem with just getting a search warrant?

Re:What?

[MikeBabcock]

The fact that due process frequently restricts the police to acting justly instead of going on fishing expeditions.

Re:What?

[unr3a1]

The problem with getting warrants is that they take time to get. They have to hand information over to a Judge to look at so they can determine if there is enough probable cause for a search warrant, and if they Judge denies it, no warrant, aka no searching.

If the Judge DOES issue the warrant, they have to notify you at some point about the search, whether it be before they search, while they search, or after they have searched.

If they can "legally" make it so that they don't need a warrant to acquire certain information, it allows them to gather information much more quickly on someone and without that person ever knowing that their property was searched (until the evidence is brought up in trial of course, then it would be obvious to that person that their property was searched at some point).

This is about the government wanting the ability to gather information or evidence covertly and without cause on anyone they deem it to be necessary.

This is why I am seriously considering just running my own e-mail server from my house. Then the only way to get the information would be to either subpoena me for it, or issue a warrant to come into my home to search my computer.

Go Yahoo and Google for fighting this blatant violation of 4th Amendment rights.

Re:What?

[jDeepbeep]

What exactly is the problem with just getting a search warrant?

It is not convenient to have to bother with one.

Re:What?

[natophonic]

The problem with getting warrants is that they take time to get.

My brother-in-law is a homicide detective. According to him, he can get a warrant in under 30 minutes, if it's important.

We'll be presented with all manner of 24-esque ticking-time-bomb-in-the-school-basement scenarios to illustrate why and when this warrant-less search power would be used. In reality, it will be used to dredge up dirt on status-quo-threatening politicians and political activists that will then be mysteriously leaked to the press.

Makes no sense

[thepike]

How are previously opened emails not in electronic storage? Are they electronic? Yes. Are they being stored? Yes. Thereby electronic storage. And how does the previously opened or unopened even come into play here? When I open my mail (and keep it in a filing cabinet in my house) is it any less mine than it was before I opened it? Would they still need a search warrant to find it, or is it not in "hard storage" because I opened it? I don't understand why people thing that storing things in the cloud makes them less mine (legally). When I rent a storage space barn they property I put in it is still mine, so if I'm using online servers to store information, that information should still be mine.

At the same time, I'm glad to see Google, the EFF, and such coming to help Yahoo. Obviously it's because they don't want precedent set, but still it's nice to see them playing nice.

OK DoJ

[aztektum]

Then post all your already read e-mails to the Internet.

Death of cloud services in 3..2..1

[scorp1us]

Well, this would put a damper on quite a few things if the government's motion is granted.

And what is the implication if I just keep marking things as unread?

4th Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It does not say that papers and effects in our houses are protected. Rather it treats them separately, with no distinguishment between them. Also, "effects" does not solely mean "possessions" though it does certainly include them. I would contend that email is an 'effect'.

Slippery slope

[gurps_npc]

In used to dislike slippery slope arguments. They usually start by claiming A, even though is neccessary, should not be done because it will lead to Z. This ignores the fact that B-Y exist and we have a lot of precendents about NOT doing them, all of which prevent Z from being considered.

But what I have seen happening with regards to internet privacy is a clear, real slippery slope. Mainly because of two factors:

A. Is NOT and never has been neccessary. (I.e. if they can get a warrant to read my my snail-mail, they can surely get one to read my email.)

B. Unlike the past centurey, technology now moves so quickly that lawmakers, judges and lawyers often are in the position of making judgments about things that they don't understand. So the slippery slope starts to be a real issue as they are forced to use less and less similar reference points as precedent instead.

Re:No Privicy if Networked

[BobMcD]

Remember the thinkgeek.com tee shirt "i read your e-mail"? We as the nerd community have known for years that if its on a computer it's fair game for any one clever enough to find a way in. The only secure system is the one that isn't networked and doesn't do anything that requires personal information of any kind, so that leaves us the NES and the TI85. Now the government want's to play with this power. Who is shocked by this?

This is like saying that the only secure home is the one buried underground and sealed off by concrete.

The gaps are obvious. Law enforcement has restrictions placed upon it expressly due to those gaps, not in spite of them.

My neighbor can peer in my windows, but this can't be used against me in court as it was illegal for him to do so. This doesn't mean I need to board up all my windows - that's simply not the logical solution.

other ramifications???

[electricprof]

IANAL but this seems to get close to the idea of itellectual property. If "effects" excludes email from protection because it's not physically tangible property, then why would IP enjoy protection? Of course I'm probably way off here.