TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Feds Can Search Your E-Mail Without Notice
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Feds Can Search Your E-Mail Without Notice
Feds Can Search Your E-Mail Without Notice
No matter how much of our personal lives exist in e-mail services such as Gmail, a U.S. District Court judge says if the government takes a look at your e-mail.
The opinion by federal judge Michael Mosman, handed down in Portland, Oregon, involves a case in which the government has probable cause for a search and asked Google to provide nine months of a Gmail subscriber's e-mails, seeking evidence of the crime. Furthermore, the feds asked that the search warrant be sealed and that the user shouldn't be told what was happening.
Gmail isn't the only e-mail provider that might face this situation. Other services, including Microsoft's Hotmail and AOL, say in their usage terms that they'll share information with the government when required by warrant or court order. What's shocking is that this could be happening without your knowledge.
Mosman's ruling reversed an earlier decision that the user must get a receipt after the government rifles through e-mail. Though he says electronic communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure, those protections don't apply to the e-mail user. If the government takes a look at your e-mail, the obligation to disclose what was searched ends at the Internet Service Provider.
Mosman gives this analogy: If the government seizes a package sent by FedEx, the recipient and the sender don't have to be told, as long as FedEx gets a copy of the warrant. Also, Mosman wrote that the government didn't take any property, so to speak, because e-mail can be viewed from anywhere.
The nut of the issue is that Mosman doesn't liken e-mail to personal property stored at home. "If a suspect leaves private documents at his mother's house and the police obtain a warrant to search his mother's house, they need only provide a copy of the warrant and a receipt to the mother, even though she is not the 'owner' of the documents," he writes.
However, Mosman writes that the law remains unclear about whether information stored online is like a "virtual home." I think enough people assume so that we need some legislation to iron this out.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/1810...udge_rules.html
| quote: |
involves a case in which the government has probable cause for a search |
Time to call the ACLU!
fucked up none the less.
/goes back to using gmail to organise a big batch of disco pebbles for me and my mates for the Steve Bug boat cruise this weekend...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN how is this news? the government can search anything as long as they have probably cause. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Well in this day and age "probable cause" means something totally different (anything they fuckin want) to the government then what it really is. All they have to do is send a request to an ISP and they will hand over your info without you knowing. Shady. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ziptnf Why would the government snoop your email unless you had something to hide? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi fucked up none the less. |
Because it's the "war on terror" LOL, more like another bullshit excuse that removes everyone's privacy.
How easy we all forget.
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S., without warrants.
The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic. [3]
Shortly before Congress passed a new law in August 2007 that legalized warrantless surveillance, the Protect America Act of 2007, critics stated that such "domestic" intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[2] The Bush administration maintained that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).[3] FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.[4] In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.[5]
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed the existence of the program, first reported in a December 16, 2005 article in The New York Times.[6][7] The Times had posted the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration was considering seeking a Pentagon-Papers-style court injunction to block its publication.[8] Critics of The Times have openly alleged that executive editor Bill Keller had knowingly withheld the story from publication since before the 2004 Presidential election, and that the story that was ultimately first published by The Times was essentially the same one that reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau had first submitted at that time.[9] In a December 2008 interview with Newsweek, former Justice Department employee Thomas Tamm revealed himself to be the initial whistle-blower to The Times.[10]
Gonzales stated that the program authorizes warrantless intercepts where the government "has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda." and that one party to the conversation is "outside of the United States".[11] The revelation raised immediate concern among elected officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and the public at large about the legality and constitutionality of the program and the potential for abuse. Since then, the controversy[12] has expanded to include the press's role in exposing a classified program, the role and responsibility of Congress in its executive oversight function and the scope and extent of Presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_wa...nce_controversy
hey, how's the citizen's NYC petition re 911 going champ?
As long as the person in question really is engaging in criminal activity, I'm fine with this. If they are systematically searching people's email and internet activity, then I hope the ACLU sues the fuck out of them.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey, how's the citizen's NYC petition re 911 going champ? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton As long as the person in question really is engaging in criminal activity, I'm fine with this. If they are systematically searching people's email and internet activity, then I hope the ACLU sues the fuck out of them. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut I figured it would not take you too long to show your true ugly self. But since you asked the 9/11 families were denied, but I am willing to bet these hundreds of families are not going to stop for an independent investigation anytime soon. And of course if there is not anything to hide what's the problem with a real investigation? http://nyccan.org/Decision_Denied.php |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN awesome to see people still trying. let us know when you have some success there champ. keep fighting the good fight! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Have you taken a look at my signature lately? LOL |
I've been reading culorut's emails under the jurisdiction of E.O. 11985 for almost a year now. Quite a thick dossier.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I've been reading culorut's emails under the jurisdiction of E.O. 11985 for almost a year now. Quite a thick dossier. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut The problem is that they have no fuking clue who the criminals are therefore they are going to check everyone and anyone. That's the whole point, make up a reason for a bogus warrant to submit to an ISP and in turn they hand over your all your info without you knowing. It's the war on terror but US citizens are the criminals. LOL Have fun deleting your inbox. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN why? how is this any different to any other warrant that may be executed in accordance with the law? police already conduct clandestine searches; an old highschool acquaintance of mine had his mail searched, ecstasy found, ecstasy removed and replaced with something harmless, suspect followed and arrested once the package was picked up. oh noes, its nazi germany! |
welcome to 2001, this isn't exactly news
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi i assumed a stoner and occasional dabbler in disco biscuits like yourself would have a little more sympathy towards misdemeanors that are considered illegal in some laws that are way past their use by date and are frankly, immoral (imo anyway) when we look at how permissive our society is towards the two deadliest drugs in the world - booze and tabacco |
And he was never heard from again...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On And he was never heard from again... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i know, youre obsessed with me. its rather flattering actually. the CT brigade always need something to obsess over. if im that obsession for you, then so be it. keep me updated on all the progress for a new investigation. i love the lols. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.