Slashdot Mirror
Fourth Amendment Protects Hosted E-mail
Okian Warrior writes "As reported on the EFF website, today the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the contents of the messages in an email inbox hosted on a provider's servers are protected by the Fourth Amendment, even though the messages are accessible to an email provider. As the court puts it, 'The government may not compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of a subscriber's emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.'"
pig just flew overhead.
Now if only my balls were safe.
I was Freedom Fondled last week. When were you? Remember, it's unpatriotic not to Opt Out!
And when you are standing in the Opt Out Line, make certain to introduce yourself and shake the hand of your fellow Opt Out patriots.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Yeah, Nerdlington P. Noogler is going to read through all your correspondence and reveal to all his friends that you are fond of Lol-cats. The horror.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
What would you do
If you were asked to get fondled for freedom?
What would you do
If asked to let your junk take the sacrifice?
Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had?
Would you think about all them flight vets
And would you start to feel bad?
Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all get fondled
The terrists will win, they will!
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty in' fee.
And if you don't get scanned by the TSA
Who will?
Shoot whoever read your e-mail, whoever didn't protect your e-mail, and while you're at it, anyone on your lawn.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
And as we all know, if they can manage to find an excuse to put away an upstanding citizen like Al Capone, they can find a reason to lock up ANYBODY!! ;)
The good-faith reliance exception to the exclusionary rule, which IIRC is nearly as old as the rule itself, has always been outside the scope of that doctrine (its not seen as contrary to it, since the exclusionary rule itself is simply a remedy to a Constitutional violation, not an independent Constitutional mandate, and the good-faith reliance exception is viewed as essential to the purpose of the remedy, which is to deter unconstitutional actions by law enforcement, which purpose -- the Courts have repeatedly held -- excluding evidence seized under provisions of statute that officers reasonably believed were constitutional does not serve.)
Damn, that's some serious butchering of the English language.
At least when people write software code instead of legal code we don't try to pretend that it is English.