31–40 of 41 posts
Thing is...do I really think that in using Google they won't read my mail?
You should, as Google has perhaps the best privacy record in the Internet industry among remotely similar organizations.
This means very little when Google still has to comply with subpoenas. They don't really have much of a choice, pressed up against the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really a controversial opinion, it's a fairly straightforward application of 4th amendment principles. There is nothing propagandist or unreasonable about pointing out that the 4th amendment has never protected information freely handed over to private third parties. The Constitution doesn't always protect everything we think should be protected. The language of the 4th amendment clearly refers to the privac…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak I certainly don't expect my mail carrier to hold my envelopes up to a lightbulb to decode the contents of my letters. Nor do I expect Delta to copy and distribute the documents in my briefcase when I put it in the cargo hold. The fourth amendment protects my papers and effects, not only when they are on my person.
As for your mail carrier: that's different, the postal service is affiliated with the government. Also, while you may not expect Delta to copy and distribute your documents when you put them in the cargo hold, that has nothing to do with the 4th amendment. The Bill of Rights is only a restraint on federal and state governments, not on private parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine that it's easier to fight a subpoena directed at you than it is to fight one directed at Google (for example).
You may be surprised. Google has more legal resources, and less fear off illegal imprisonment. The government had wide latitude for breaking its own laws against individuals.
2. Not all 3rd parties are going to care enough to do anything other than just roll over and do what that government asks of them.
3. Not all 3rd parties are Google, nor should they be. (as in Google shouldn't be 'the web')
Thing is...do I really think that in using Google they won't read my mail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only if you accept the current "third party doctrine" interpretation of the limits of the fourth amendment. There is nothing in the amendment itself to limit its protections in the way that they have been, and, in fact, these limits have not been enforced uniformly. For instance, even though you make (or made) telephone calls in the clear over a third party network, the government cannot tap your phone calls w…
In the legal sense, the third party doctrine is as inherent to the 4th amendment as anything can be--it's the Supreme Court's binding interpretation of the contours of the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy." In the practical sense, I strain to see how someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in say their e-mail when Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc, data-mine those communications in order to show tar…
Basically the only thing that makes phone calls special is the tech to easily store and search old conversations didn't exist. Now a days the phone company (or Skype etc..) could keep a digital record of all conversations if they wanted to.
Which way do you think it should it go? Should email be added to "reasonable expectation of privacy" or should voice calls remove that expectation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only if you accept the current "third party doctrine" interpretation of the limits of the fourth amendment. There is nothing in the amendment itself to limit its protections in the way that they have been, and, in fact, these limits have not been enforced uniformly. For instance, even though you make (or made) telephone calls in the clear over a third party network, the government cannot tap your phone calls w…
In the legal sense, the third party doctrine is as inherent to the 4th amendment as anything can be--it's the Supreme Court's binding interpretation of the contours of the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy." In the practical sense, I strain to see how someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in say their e-mail when Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc, data-mine those communications in order to show tar…
Or, to put it better:
>the Supreme Court's binding interpretation of the contours of the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy", in which the Supreme Court bended over to big goverment and took the most BS route of interpretation it could.
The most disturbing bit from the article: "Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, federal authorities need only a subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor - not a judge - to obtain electronic messages that are six months old or older."
You beat me to the punch. That act is 26 years old, and I've never before heard about his little provision in all my reading of discussions on email privacy. Time and time again, I think, "I should bite the bullet and register a domain name for 10 years to host my own email on, encrypting everything that makes it past the spam blocker." I know, I know. I'm not that interesting a person, especially to the federal gove…
The idea behind that right had to do with the ability of the people to overthrow an oppressive government, not with the ability to have guns per se, e.g as a gun collector or to protect your house from burglars.
And, as we know, the utility of guns against an oppresive government today is zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only if you accept the current "third party doctrine" interpretation of the limits of the fourth amendment. There is nothing in the amendment itself to limit its protections in the way that they have been, and, in fact, these limits have not been enforced uniformly. For instance, even though you make (or made) telephone calls in the clear over a third party network, the government cannot tap your phone calls w…
In the legal sense, the third party doctrine is as inherent to the 4th amendment as anything can be--it's the Supreme Court's binding interpretation of the contours of the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy." In the practical sense, I strain to see how someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in say their e-mail when Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc, data-mine those communications in order to show tar…
I don't see how its strange at all to have an expectation of privacy even if they data mine it -- seems like just a term in a contract to me. For example, if you hire me to protect your valuable manuscripts in my more-secure safe, but grant me in this agreement the exclusive privilege to read these documents with an NDA attached -- would it then obviously follow that I deserve no privacy for those documents AT ALL because I handed them to a third party? Of course not. Many people know and find acceptable that Amazon uses data about your purchases to build suggestions for others -- those same people would consider it completely different to go around telling others what you purchased (government or otherwise). I'm sure even you agree that the expectation that GMail not publish all your emails in a blog post is reasonable -- so the belief in needing a warrant to see them isn't that much of a stretch.
My point is not that this is the current legal interpretation -- I understand its not. I'm simply pointing out that it is perfectly logically consistent from the user's viewpoint to expect this. Furthermore, it seems like if I were to go out of my way in our contract to specify the privacy of your email the government would still think its fine to read it.
So the head of the CIA can't think of a better way to securely communicate with his lover than draft emails. He's the head of the nation's spy agency and he's a terrible spy. Good riddance.