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."
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!
The CIA is for international (or at least not on US soil) work.
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?
When the law was written, people downloaded their email to their computers and it was deleted from the server. If the email was still on the server after 6 months, it was most likely abandoned. Webmail was essentially nonexistent. You're showing your (lack of) age.
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"
What if the ISP says 'not without a warrant' on this too?
Why would they do that? Seriously, what motivation do that have to do that? All it could possibly do is create headaches for the legal department. And if the ISP says 'not without a warrant' and wins, rest assured that somebody in law enforcement would start investigating them for something-or-other. While there's probably a market for an ISP that protects its customers legally, I doubt that the market is large enough to sustain a company that has a real chance of competing with the AT&Ts of the world.
I am officially gone from
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.