Your comment is irresponsible. If you read the case--and there was a link--you would find that it didn't take the courts 20 years to figure this out. There was a statute in place since 1985 that protected e-mails from government intrusion without a warrant. The reason that this issue took 32 years to arise is that almost every law enforcement agency in the country follows the law and gets a warrant before searching an ISP for e-mail.
Perhaps you should "take some responsibility" and instead of "blindly" casting stones at the judiciary and other people, read the source, find out what it means, and make a meaningful comment. Try reading. It's fundamental.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment is irresponsible. If you read the case--and there was a link--you would find that it didn't take the courts 20 years to figure this out. There was a statute in place since 1985 that protected e-mails from government intrusion without a warrant. The reason that this issue took 32 years to arise is that almost every law enforcement agency in the country follows the law and gets a warrant before searching an ISP for e-mail. Perhaps you should "take some responsibility" and instead of "blindly" casting stones at the judiciary and other people, read the source, find out what it means, and make a meaningful comment. Try reading. It's fundamental.