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.'"
Notice they said an Internet Service Provider's servers, not a small business, or a large enterprise, or a non-profit, or government of any kind. How many people do you know that still use the Email service that comes with their ISP?
pig just flew overhead.
They can't legally compel them, but they can "request convincingly", I imagine. Does this mean that if the police ask my ISP for my email and my ISP hands the records over without a warrant, any evidence gotten that way is inadmissible? Does it mean I can sue my ISP?
In a physical search, anyone living in a house can consent to a search of the property. Can Comcast voluntarily consent to a search of their customers' email?
The ruling might not be the same if the email is intercepted from some other source.
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.
Just because it is illegal means nothing.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
Let's say you use a Gmail address as your primary email instead of whatever's provided by the people who provide your internet connection. Do they count as an "internet service provider" here, or is this decision as narrow as it sounds?
Software piracy is victimless theft.
Yet another data point proving that the EFF is one of the best nonprofit organizations in the US for a geek to bestow a gift upon.
If you're the kind of donor who's inclined to reward success rather than fund battles, now's a great time...
Oh, wait... See sig.
I can see the fnords!
Because reputation based systems (i.e., anyone hosting more than 1,000 mail accounts, and some smaller systems) are going to see that you don't own that IP, and don't own the reverse lookup on that IP. So they will score you badly.
On top of that it's virtually guaranteed that your ISP explicitly forbids running services on your home Internet connection, and probably even mentions email as a service you're not allowed to run. Most large ISPs also block all TCP/25 traffic going through their networks that is not aimed at their own email servers (which is why TCP/587 is so popular for SMTP submission with third party email providers), and you HAVE to use that port for server to server email traffic.
Those are just some reasons.
Can I submit a formal request that demands my email provider not release any of my emails without being forced by warrant. If I can't stop voluntary compliance, then this is not very helpful anyway. In other words, we need the supreme court to rule that it is illegal for the host to disclose my emails without a warrant or this doesn't help in any meaningful way.
Er, maybe I'm just cynical, but it (unfortunately) seems like both parties are willing to throw civil liberties under the bus when they think it's important; they differ mainly with regard to what they think is important. Call it a cynical hunch, but I suspect that if Obama were to appoint Janet Reno (Bill Clinton's attorney general) to the Supreme Court, she wouldn't be terribly eager to rein in the might of the federal government or limit the scope of its authority, and she's quite far to the left.
Thats the very old trick that is used. A massive passive database of who is connected to who.
One person gets a real court sneak and peek letter, anyone one connected gets their email lists sorted
- who they are connecting to and so on. So if they dont read they can collect all connecting details they want.
A bit like the NYPD collecting IMEI numbers via an offer to remove a cell phone battery to prevent leakage.
NYPD tracking cell phone owners.
Its the number/ip/logs/connections thats interesting long term, the contents can wait.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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."
Because Wikileak do not have his powers restricted by a Bill of Rights... It don't even have powers to begin with. In fact, Wikileak is not even a government. Oh wait, were you just trolling?
If you have the extra money, I think it's worth it to ride right past $BIG_CONSUMER_ISP and go with something like Covad. They don't care what services you run, or if you max your connection all day and night. An ISP like this will enable you to run your own mail providing you:
- Also run your own DNS
- Have the ISP delegate/host reverse DNS
- Have at least one static IP
In my opinion it's worth it for the extra control, but you also have to be willing to handle data and battery backup to make things reliable.
4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
In what way has Wikileaks accessed someone's email without their consent?
4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
The one with the waxed moustache and lazy eye.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
So why in the world would anyone fight to make sure that every single one of them could carry a lethal weapon hidden on their person? Even to the point of misinterpreting a constitutional amendment regarding states' rights and militias to mean that every one of those idiots gets to pack heat.
Seriously.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why should a stupid person have fewer rights than a genius? Driving is a privilege rather than a right. I'm far more concerned with idiot drivers; an automobile is far more dangerous than a handgun. At most, a handgun can kill 7 or 8 people at a time, and only one at a time by accident. Meanwhile, an idiot behind the wheel can easily kill and maim a dozen or more with one shot, even an accidental shot. And it's no easier to suicide with a gun than any other means; lots of people hang themselves.
There were about 9,000 handgun shooting deaths in 2004 (the last year in wikipedia's graph), while around 45,000 die annually on our highways.
People were driving exceptionally stupid yesterday, maybe it had to do with the mayor shooting himself? (The press is backtracking on the "self inflicted shooting", and the State Police are being tight lipped about it)
Free Martian Whores!
Actually, that occurred at the end of the Spanish American War with the passage of the Dick Act (no, really, that's what its named - it's not a clever backronym). All male citizens of the United States of the age 18 to the age 45 are members of the Reserve Militia.
I would suggest that every male citizen of the United States buy a rifle caliber 5.56x45 NATO (or if your really enjoy life 7.62x51 NATO) to prepare for your eventual induction.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Nah, in 1791 they just hadn't had the opportunity to violate the Constitution yet, but they were able to do it by the end of the decade.