Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US DOJ Say They Don't Need Warrants For E-Mail, Chats

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-can-trust-us dept.

gannebraemorr writes "The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI believe they don't need a search warrant to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files, internal documents reveal. Government documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and provided to CNET show a split over electronic privacy rights within the Obama administration, with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators privately insisting they're not legally required to obtain search warrants for e-mail."

14 of 457 comments (clear)

  1. "split" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Keep knock'n back that cool-aid

  2. Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to be watched by the Government.

    1. Re:Land of the free by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why isn't all email encrypted yet?

      All we need is email programs that perform a Diffie-Hellman key exchange during the first few emails you exchange with anybody (add an attachment the the email which the user never sees). After two or three emails exchanged, you're encrypted. Why isn't it being done?

      I'm guessing the men in black SUVs pay visits to anybody who attempts it. What's the explanation if not...?

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Land of the free by netwarerip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ....... What's the explanation if not...?

      Likely because 99.86% of the people that use email can't even pronounce Diffie-Hellman, let alone know what it is.

    3. Re:Land of the free by defaria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it's difficult to understand and difficult to use and most people don't know and don't care about encryption. You don't need to put on your beany hat and start conspiracy theories with men in black SUVs - I tried to use encryption and by and large the people I tried it with were nothing but confused and couldn't see the value in it.

    4. Re:Land of the free by quarrelinastraw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because many email providers -- such as gmail, hotmail, yahoo, etc -- want to read your email to serve you ads. Encryption runs counter to the profit motive.

  3. FOI Requests? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does the same logic mean that the government can not reject FOI requests for emails and can not redact anything in emails?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Re:Oh wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It ends when you start sending prosecutors to jail for misconduct.

  5. Re:Depends by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can sniff the network and easily read what I sent then fine. If I secure my emails so they don't appear in plain text then I think you do.

    So basically your stance is - if you mail a letter in a sealed envelope, it's fair game, but if the letter is written in code, it's not.

    Strange philosophy you have there.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  6. Re:Fourth Amendment by funwithBSD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you got that backwards, or forgot the /sarcasm tag:

    Searches by government are by definition unreasonable, thus they need a warrent.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  7. Re:Oh wait! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It ends when prosecutors start sending prosecutors to jail for misconduct.

    FTFY, and identified the real problem at the same time.

    If self-policing worked, we wouldn't have need for police, you know?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  8. Re:Second Amendment by Zcar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hell, Boston proved that the Fourth Amendment is no obstacle to searching people's houses without a warrant. Not only did the people there let them do it, but they were happy to let them do it.

    Yes. And there's no violation of the 4th Amendment if you willingly wave that right and say, "Come right on in and look around!" The 4th is only about coerced searches.

  9. Re:Fourth Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Sarah Palin email hack occurred on September 16, 2008.... The incident was ultimately prosecuted in a U.S. federal court as four felony crimes punishable by up to 50 years in federal prison.[3][4] The charges were three felonies: identity theft, wire fraud, and anticipatory obstruction of justice; and one optional as felony or misdemeanor: intentionally accessing an account without authorization.

    If emails etc are not expected to be private, why is it a felony crime to access someone else's email?

  10. Second Amendment ... by pollarda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The gun issue not withstanding, the Government's attack on the Second Amendment is horrific and sets up really bad precidence for the Fourth Amendment, First Amendment, as well as others.

    FOURTH AMENDMENT
    Just think: In order to exercise your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Government needs to perform a background check on you to ensure that you are an upstanding citizen.

    FIRST AMENDMENT
    In order to exercise your First Amendment rights, you are subject to a three day waiting period. You may only use media types approved by the Government. Discourses conducted through media not sanctioned is a felony.

    etc.