Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!



Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« Twelfth Child Dies After Brazilian Mass Shooting; Shooter A Jihadi? | Main | Wisconsin Election Board Won't Certify Results Until After Probe »
April 08, 2011

WTF? Government Can Read Any Of Your Old Emails Without A Warrant?

Can this possibly be true?

This is Wired, so I guess I believe them, but this... unbelievable. And scary.

And the government wants to retain this ability?

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans’ e-mail stored in the cloud.

"The cloud," I understand, is just email stored on external serves. Like any free email account. Like gmail, or yahoo.

As the law stands now, the authorities may obtain cloud e-mail without a warrant if it is older than 180 days, thanks to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act adopted in 1986. At that time, e-mail left on a third-party server for six months was considered to be abandoned, and thus enjoyed less privacy protection. However, the law demands warrants for the authorities to seize e-mail from a person’s hard drive.

A coalition of internet service providers and other groups, known as Digital Due Process, has lobbied for an update to the law to treat both cloud- and home-stored e-mail the same, and thus require a probable-cause warrant for access. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on that topic Tuesday.

That's insane. That's insane.

Generally these questions turn on the question of whether a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when making a communication.

All I can say is that I honestly believed that the government wasn't allowed to snoop in my email. I thought it was private. I realize any company can break its own privacy rules and read it themselves, but I thought there would be measures to punish that if it happened. Same as anyone at the Post Office could steam open a letter of mine, if he wanted.

Who thought that their email was Anything Goes for government snoops? I didn't. And if I'd known that, I wouldn't ever have used it at all.

If this is going to be the policy, then tell us so we can make arrangements going forward.

This idea that the government can take the position, quietly, that they're not going to tell you you have no privacy so they can continue exploiting this ignorance... well, if someone doesn't tell me I don't have an expectation of privacy, then my beliefs should rule.

Thanks to Reverend Jim.


digg this
posted by Ace at 03:53 PM

| Access Comments




Recent Comments
BEN ROETHLISBERGER[/i]: ">>I don't get the point of plagiarism. If you thin ..."

Ciampino - Si Ispettore, sono quasi tutti neri: "263 263 > Ouch. That will leave a mark but the fe ..."

Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression): "So, apropos of nothing - I picked up the 2025 [ ..."

rhennigantx: "311 Disclose.tv @disclosetv NEW - A statistical ..."

18-1: "If Carter isn't elected the Islamic Revolution in ..."

Don Black: "Harvey Martin once threw a funeral wreath into the ..."

Lizzy[/i]: ">>U of Nevada says girl volleyball players' views ..."

Bulgaroctonus: "Thanks, Bulgar. I will tell him. How are things on ..."

Common Tater: "Consultants work to get paid. Rove is not unusual ..."

Don Black: "no love for Isky? ..."

18-1: "[i]And we will be dealing with a "selected" Presid ..."

[/i][/b][/s][/u]I used to have a different nic: "[i]And just like 2000 SCOTUS will most likely have ..."

Recent Entries
Search


Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64