Why is email that is 180 days old considered abandoned?
Does this also apply to email, that is stored on a server that I rented or bought?
Am I supposed to delete all email after I read it?
Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
111–120 of 199 posts
Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
My company is working on this: http://parley.co EDIT: As mentioned a few times elsewhere on this thread, the biggest barrier to encrypted email adoption is the network effect, ie. both ends need to be using it. That is the core problem we're trying to solve--making an email system that would be better than the rest even if it weren't encrypted, but that's the icing on the cake.
If "works anywhere on any device" means it crypto code is loaded over Javascript without browser extensions, that's a goal that cannot share a project with "make it impossible for admins to read email even with a subpoena". The reason it's 2012 and there's still no universal solution for encrypting email is that it's a hard problem. If you care about the security of your mail, you should use GPG.
Don't blame subpoenas for the problem of spineless admins that will actively hack their clients because the government asked them to. Backdoors can't be mandated by a subpoena, only the recording of server-side data (unless I am grossly misinformed).
Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fox News would not exist if people weren't scared of foreigners blowing up their house in Nebraska because some Saudi's crashed a plane into the WTC 11 years ago.
Fox News launched in '96 and became the #1 cable news channel in 2000.
It also wasn't what it is today. The current fox news functions because of fear. Remember, in the last decade, MSNBC went from trying to beat fox by supporting Iraq more than them to what they are now, I wouldn't make a whole lot of conclusions of MSNBC programming today based on them circa 2000
Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Sixth Disctrict court of appeals did address this directly in US v Warshak [0]. What this scare article does a good job of is confusing the reader. Unopened email left on a 3rd party server for longer than 180 days was considered discarded or abandoned property. Discarded physical property has never retained a reasonable expectation of privacy (for instance, the police are free to dumpster dive once your property…
This is the most informed post here so far. A couple of important points to add. The problem is 2703(f). It allows a government entity to request a snapshot of a user's account "pending the issuance of a court order or other process", meaning that 180 days later, the government can just issue a subpoena - they get their foot in the door and then come back later with the lowered bar, and only need a subpoena. Same eff…
The concurring opinion authored by Judge Keith was directly on point of your second paragraph regarding the indefinite renewal constituting an illegal wiretap. It concludes that 2703(f) is vacuous as it is clearly fails constitutionality for this reason. [0]
I'm sure the irony that such an important case is based on the illegal money laundering of a company peddling a penis-enlarging drug scam will not be lost. Remember Enzyte and the smiling Bob ads? I'm still amazed how easily they got so many merchant accounts given their chargeback rates but I guess that's what fraud will get you.
[0]: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0377p-06.pdf (concurring opinion begins at page 95).
Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing about monitoring our email that is necessary for security. The war on terror is a giant hoax, more people are killed every year choking on peanut butter. Members of the government are always reaching for more and more control over our lives and power to watch us.
Not that I disagree entirely, but looking at deaths prevented isn't really relevant. Terrorism isn't about death, it's about terror, putting people in a state of fear. The war on terror isn't about preventing death, it's about preventing fear. People aren't afraid of choking on peanut butter or car accidents because they feel they have some control over those situations. Terrorism creates fear by removing that sense…
> it's about preventing fear
From an outsider perspective, this is very relevant of what US has became. I'm always surprised that a country which places freedom as the highest value tends to give away all its civil rights so easily.
Sounds to me like people behind 9/11 attacks have succeeded : US is not fighting fear, it's diving into it, more and more every year, hence the loss of freedom for its people.
Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything we can do to proactively claim or declare our emails older than 180 days to be not discarded and not abandoned? Or move them to a new server periodically so that they aren't stored in a server for more than 180 days? From Wikipedia [1]: "Property is generally deemed to have been abandoned if it is found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition that it is apparen…
Google already does not fulfill subpoenas for email seizures in many cases due to the decision in Warshak - their contention is that they cannot be sure if the user resides or uses their email under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit. It's puzzling to think about why Warshak wasn't appealed to the Supreme Court (SC), where a decision would have federal instead of regional consequences. The Justice Department most…
Google's particular problem, in my humble opinion, is that the protections do not apply to non-content portions of the communication. For example, the government does not need a warrant to require production of the smtp logs, just as they don't need a warrant to see what phone numbers you called whereas listening to those same conversations does require court authority.
Google unlike most other email providers is going through the content of every email (I assume prior to its being read by the user) and indexing its contents for the purposes of determining relevant advertising (and whatever else they do with that info about which I admittedly know very little).
I would wager that those indexes might fall under the "log" rather than "content" aspect and therefore their production would not be subject to warrant if they are keeping it stored somewhere; but, that's for someone receiving a higher pay grade to determine.
Cert for Warshak was not sought by either party most likely because the outcome of the appeal was largely in the govt's favor. Most of the convictions stood while only some were remanded. So I imagine it wasn't in either parties' best interest to roll the dice again. Finally, the precedent established in Warshak is applicable in the other horizontal jurisdictions. I would find it hard to believe any of the other appellate courts would go against its sound reasoning. But I guess the point stands that if you want to be safe you should ensure your servers reside in the jurisdiction of the Sixth!
Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
#117I wish we would treat cyberspace analogues of established property with the same respect given to the original. For example, your e-mail inbox is the online equivalent of your mailbox. Yet, one being "on your lawn" and the other "at Google's data-center," all bets are off. While I believe the Supreme Court should do better job at explicitly addressing this (for instance, "responsible expectation of privacy" establish…
The Sixth Disctrict court of appeals did address this directly in US v Warshak [0]. What this scare article does a good job of is confusing the reader. Unopened email left on a 3rd party server for longer than 180 days was considered discarded or abandoned property. Discarded physical property has never retained a reasonable expectation of privacy (for instance, the police are free to dumpster dive once your property…
But that's a dumb law. If the company can keep my e-mail "forever", then I expect it to be private forever. What kind of arbitrary rule is this that they can start looking into my e-mail after 180 days?
Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
#118They always do that in holidays when no one is looking like they did with the NDAA. no suprise
The NDAA did exactly what this bill purports to do: leave intact an unfortunate status quo. Almost nothing people say about it on message boards is true; it has become a shibboleth for "I pass along public policy gossip without verifying it".
But did it leave it intact or did it enforce it? Why did they need to write in NDAA too that they can do that if there already was written in another law?
Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing about monitoring our email that is necessary for security. The war on terror is a giant hoax, more people are killed every year choking on peanut butter. Members of the government are always reaching for more and more control over our lives and power to watch us.
Not that I disagree entirely, but looking at deaths prevented isn't really relevant. Terrorism isn't about death, it's about terror, putting people in a state of fear. The war on terror isn't about preventing death, it's about preventing fear. People aren't afraid of choking on peanut butter or car accidents because they feel they have some control over those situations. Terrorism creates fear by removing that sense…
So what does it mean when the people fear their government more when they implement those "anti-terror" policies?
Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the "follow the money" line of thinking, looking at who takes most benefits from terrorism explains a lot of things. "Terrorists" didn't get much I think. Politicians, law makers, government agencies got to push forward their agenda by leaps and bounds.
Hmmm... I kinda wonder sometimes. This is a ludicrous idea, but have you ever thought about the recent HSBC scandal, where they were laundering billions and billions of dollars for terrorist organizations and organized crime? The same terrorist organizations and organized crime that is the primary justification for domestic spying, paramilitary police, huge prison populations, secret rendition and indefinite detentio…
Yeah, shouldn't those bankers be sent without trial to Guantanamo or something?