Slashdot Mirror
Feds Shy Away From Raiding Email Without Warrant
nonprofiteer writes "In December, a federal judge ruled that the 4th amendment applies to email and that the feds cannot go after it without a warrant. (We have Smilin' Bob to thank for that.) Though the federal judge's decision only applies to the four states in his jurisdiction, it looks like federal agencies are applying it nationally. An internal email written by the IRS general counsel cites the law and says that its collectors can no longer get the contents of suspected tax cheats' email by sending letters to their ISPs, though it can get non-content information, like who they email and how they pay for their accounts."
Thank bob for a little nudge in the right direction for online privacy.
It's good to hear the US government isn't fighting the courts tooth and nail whenever there's a judgement against them. I with the same were true in Canada. The Harper government is hell bent on getting around a number of court orders on a variety of policies. They have their vision, and nothing will stop them -- not the will of the people, not the recommendations of scientists and experts, not statistics, and certainly not the objections of people in foreign nations (including the US. Thanks to the Texas conservatives for supporting the Canadian public's view that a prison state is not the way to go.)
The Harper government thinks a majority is a dictatorship.
I refuse to call it the Canadian government because there is nothing Canadian about the way it's treating the farmers, the stewardesses, the postal union, the medical cannabis patients, ...
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The FBI will have to get the goods on people from Mark Zuckerberg, he's got the dirt on everyone.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
We've had a technical solution to this for over a decade which, for some reason, has never become a standard. It's kind of sad when a legal solution beats a technical one.
Why do we still allow our correspondence to be transmitted in plain text?
If they want access to somebody's email without getting a warrant, all they need to do is pull the person over and search their smart phone for some bogus reason. Cause apparently that's still perfectly legal!
Glad to see the judge did his job, and glad to see that the fed at least appears to be following his ruling.
So if the email is older than 6 months they can request it w/o warrant? If my phone record is older than 6 months can they view that? Sounds like a step in the right direction, but a partial victory at best, i believe the feds can wait to charge somebody with a crime well past 6 months, whether the evidence is still there is another story.
Also, WHO you call isn't accessible without a warrant either, so I don't know, seems like a partial victory.
The CIA is for international (or at least not on US soil) work.
Perhaps you believe that the USG operates or owns the internet... they don't.
The government seeing the email is one thing; using it in court as admissible evidence is another. While other agencies can use other so-called reasons to intercept, analyze, and read email without a warrant, the IRS does not usually claim "state secrets" when prosecuting a tax fraud case.
since when have that stopped them?
"An internal email written by the IRS general counsel cites the law and says that its collectors can no longer get the contents of suspected tax cheats' email by sending letters to their ISPs, though it can get non-content information, like who they email and how they pay for their accounts."
What if the ISP says 'not without a warrant' on this too?
they'll just get it from the traffic cops phone-sucking machines after they pull over the perp for a non-existent traffic violation.
The IRS has the statutory authority to ask a judge for a warrant if they start a criminal investigation. It's not clear why they didn't do that here. The problem may be that they want to find the money, not prosecute the guy, and that's not a valid use of search warrant authority.
An interesting point is that the consumer protection agencies, the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, don't have statutory authority to even request a search warrant.
Implying they don't use it to spy on anyone and everyone.
No, AT&T does.. same difference
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Yep, the Corporations own and operate it.
Thing is, if the Gov haters ever succeed in getting rid of Government, the Corporations are likely to become the defacto Government (who else otherwise?) but not be restrained by the Constitution and pesky laws like this and the FOIA.
I think you're being naive, if you're seriously hoping ISP would stand up and protect your rights. It's not a profitable thing to do and it is most certainly not in their interest (it cost money to fight this sort of things against the government.) With majority of the market being service by just a few major ISP, there's no incentive for them to go the extra mile to keep you as their customer.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You have evidence that the government is restrained by the Constitution and the FOIA?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
That was the big changes which took place post-9/11 and the reason for the creation of homeland security. The creation of homeland security allows for these agencies to violate their charters; which includes spying and violating protections afforded under the US Constitutions. Factually, creation of homeland security is a massive step toward totalitarianism. And while frequently cited for reasons of hyperbole, in this case, none applies; take a hard look at the history of Nazi Germany. Post-9/11 literally put all of the pieces in place which exactly mirrored pre-Nazi Germany. The final piece which makes it complete was Obama's federal violation of law selling guns to criminals and then passing legislation which saves us from Obama but requires all firearm transforms to be documented. And as we know from Katrina, exactly as was done in Germany, they now have a list of exactly who they should steal (I say steal because it aptly describes; as a large portion of these stolen weapons, stolen by state and FEDERAL troops, were never returned) weapons from before they declare martial law.
Obama hates guns and had made his administration violate federal law to begin stealing them. If you believe in the US Constitution, and are of good faith, it is literally impossible to support Obama.
And if you have no idea what I'm talking about, shame on you. Go read about Gun Walker and Fast and Furious. Both of which are federal crimes acted by federal employees whereby no one has been punished (except literally, the whistle blowers) and several have been promoted. Immediately after, new anti-gun laws were passed by Obama, specifically citing these horrible crimes; as at the time Obama's violation of federal law wasn't yet public.
Honestly, the closest comparison in US history is Nixon and Water gate. Its shameful and most media is not covering it.
As in who you call and when with a telephone.
It's like them being able to stand at the post office and read the exposed front of the envelopes containing your mail. It doesn't require a search warrant.
That is what they want you to believe.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
And if the corporation lovers succeed in giving unlimited power to the business because of some misguided belief that the market self-regulates, who wins then? Corporations have already demonstrated that they care not one whit about the Constitution, and less about their workers. I'm not sure how making them even more powerful is going to change that for the better, although I'm sure in your beneficent wisdom you know exactly how perfect everything can be if only we all do it your way. You and Ron Paul.
There. FTFY.
Didn't like it? Good. Moderation, not extremism and not fundamentalism, is where the answer that best suits the nation, it's people and it's future, lies. If not, the cycle will simply begin again as you take the nation back to a place where workers have no protection from corporate abuse, children starve (only this time in ignorance, since the right hates education so) and the market will have to again adjust though voting and regulation until we get back to this point with no ground gained. If we survive this time around, that is.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
+1
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
I fail to see how contrasting the Canadian governments reaction to court rulings with US reactions is off topic. SlashDot is international. Of course I'm going to put a Canadian spin on things.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I thought that had been repealed something like ten years ago.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
> The CIA is for international (or at least not on US soil) work.
Yes, that's the original charter. Who enforces that now?
The government seeing the email is one thing; using it in court as admissible evidence is another
And they would bother doing this "court" thing ... why?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
They'll give nothing up without a warrant, and will notify me if not gagged.
IRS is only conerned with items of income, and there are forms for that. My email might have reciepts, but so would the site that I have the account with.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Oh, not this bullshit again. The constitution is a living document. This generation is simply interpreting it according to the times. Get real! Freaking originalist teabaggers...
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
"In December, a federal judge ruled"
Um... Is it me... or is December not here yet? So either this is a REALLY OLD article or they somehow invented a time machine, went about two months into the future and came back to give us this good news? I don't get it..... Maybe it has something to do with the 2013 Delorian???
Our emails have been secretly monitored for quite some time. "Shying away" from such actions is merely on paper and PR. If you believe otherwise, you're a fool.
Where to start?
The article says the R.O. in this case "asked" the ISP for the information. That can be done a number of ways. The most informal is to, you know, ask.
If an R.O. wants to find out about you and you live in an apartment complex, they'll ask the complex management for a look at your application. 20 years ago, the management would hand it over. Nowadays, in the aftermath of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1998 that, in many ways, neutered R.Os, nobody complies with simple requests.
If a recordkeeper wants a piece of paper to cover themselves for giving up the privacy of their customer, that's easy. It's called a "Notice to Exhibit Books and Records" and the R.O. can fill out one and hand that over. Nowadays, those get rejected, too.
The involvement of Counsel in this particular case means that the R.O. actually sent a summons for information to the ISP. If the summons hadn't been overbroad (asking for the text of emails), then there wouldn't have been a problem.
Here's what gets me - Why did the R.O. want the text of emails, anyway? It's enough to know the basic details provided at signup. Generally, unlawful tax avoiders try to make everything difficult for the R.O. by refusing to hand over even simple information or avoiding contact all together. Getting the basic sign-up info would provide the R.O. with a (probably) valid street address and credit card info. That's plenty to build on.
My two most successful ways to find people, back when I did this job: First, summons the persons mother. Mom generally knows where their kid is. Second, if you know the general neighborhood, summons the nearest schools for the emergency contact information provided for their kids. Even tax cheats tell the truth (daytime location/employer and all phone numbers) when it comes to letting the school know how they can be contacted in case of an emergency involving their kids.
tl;dr - RO issues overbroad summons and gets slapped. BFD and not unusual.
They will adhere to the ruling, but one thing jumps out at me. They allow "non-content" information which includes who you email. How is that not content? Paying method is obviously not content and IRS related clearly. However, allowing to see WHO I email seems a slippery slope. It seems it opens the door to guilt by association warrants. Maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah, like the Subject, To: and From: of all email, and every URL they load, including any GET form parms. This information is aggregated, burned to a CD, and handed to an FBI agent, so there is no electronic record of the transfer.
ObDisclaimer: AFAIK I am not being monitored by the FBI, but who knows? I'm an outspoken privacy and freedom advocate and I have had a job which required an FBI background check. I do, however, know someone who is responsible for handling the FBI-required monitoring of one or more of their ISP customer[s].
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You have evidence that the government is restrained by the Constitution and the FOIA?
They're definitely more restrained than corporations are, otherwise you wouldn't have this story. Quote:
The judge declared the clause in the Stored Communications Act that allows this unconstitutional. Though it was a 6th Circuit decision, and thus technically only meant to apply to the four states in that higher courtâ(TM)s jurisdiction, the IRS plans to comply with it nationally.
The US Gov has to at least pretend to respect the constitution as long as the voters and Judges consider it important enough. And they still do or pretend to in many cases.
In contrast, from what I understand of US laws, if the corporations ever own everything you'd all be screwed.
If people think that voters can't vote "properly" for the few options every few years, what makes them think that people can vote "properly" with their wallets for the few options every day?
The problem is not government nor quantity of government. The problem is quality of government. And ultimately that depends on the quality of the voters. Voter education is important.