• lioneljay said on Nov 08, 2007....

  Well, you know, if you're not ever saying anything dangerous or illegal, or politically offensive to the ruling powers, what do you have to worry about? Right, Alien? Sort of shoots the old, "it's only the terrorists that they listen to" argument, doesn't it?

• silverwhisper said on Nov 08, 2007....

  absolutely revolting.
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Nov 08, 2007....

  Excuse my language, but this is about fucked up. That article was both interesting and revolting.
  
  How can they even make such arguments? I can understand web pages, which are broadcasted, but email, like telephone calls and postal mail, are intended to be more private.
  
  At least we still have encryption technology, but still.
  

• the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 08, 2007....

  I keep opening this post to comment and not finding anything to say other than "that's appalling."
  
  ~Infernal
  

• sheltercrow said on Nov 08, 2007....

  The precedent they draw on is Katz v. United States

  Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) was a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant.

  Issue(s) before the Court

  ·         Does the Fourth Amendment protect the private conversations of an individual made in a telephone booth?

  ·         Is a physical intrusion by government officials required to violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, or is an unwarranted electronic tap on the defendant's phone enough of an act to violate his/her rights?

  ·         Is the government required to obtain a search warrant before executing a wiretap, or is a determination by the federal agents that probable cause exists enough?

  Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects right to privacy, wherever you may be.

  ·         So long as an individual can justifiably expect that his conversation would remain private, his/her conversation is protected from "unreasonable search and seizure" by the Fourth Amendment.

  ·         The Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places. Therefore, the rights of an individual may not be violated, regardless of whether or not there is physical intrusion into any given area.

  ·         A warrant is required before the government can execute a wiretap, and the warrant must be sufficiently limited in scope and duration.

  Justice Harlan formulated a two-part test for determining whether police activity constitutes a search; something is a search within the meaning of the Fourth amendment if (1) the individual "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy," and (2) society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.

  Justice Stewart wrote, "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment."

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

• TinSoldier said on Nov 09, 2007....

  Interestingly enough I'm discussing this elsewhere and the claim was made that it only requires a subpoena to open postal mail.
  
  Not so, according to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act passed in 2006 and signed by the President. I don't know about prior to that, but opening domestic first class mail requires a warrant.
  
  Except...
  

  The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

  Oh, and as I was searching Ars Technica had mentioned the email story back in 2006.
  
  Links:
  http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061227-8504.html
  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003508676_mail04.html
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-6.html

• silverwhisper said on Nov 09, 2007....

  i think you should cross-post that post-haste, TS. :>
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Nov 09, 2007....

  Later. I'm really trying to limit my non-work internet stuff.
  
  Oh, but I will do so.
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 09, 2007....

  TS: wait, i'm not sure it actually says that. ?
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Nov 09, 2007....

  Says what? Did I miss something?

• sheltercrow said on Nov 09, 2007....

  Just reading a few stanzas of the patriot act convinces me that we are screwed. Here is Wikipedia’s portal if you’d like to wade through a review. I paraphrase a little of their paraphrase.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

  Title II: Surveillance procedures, Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

  The change in definition was meant to remove a legal "wall" between criminal investigations and surveillance for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, which hampered investigations when criminal and foreign surveillance overlapped.

  Also removed was the statutory requirement that the government prove a surveillance target under FISA is a non-U.S. citizen and agent of a foreign power, though it did require that any investigations must not be undertaken on citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment.

  Wiretaps were expanded to include addressing and routing information to allow surveillance of packet switched networks — EPIC objected to this, arguing that it does not take into account email or web addresses, which often contain content in the address information.

  Search warrants were also expanded, with the Act amending Title III of the Stored Communications Access Act to allow the FBI to gain access to stored voicemail through a search warrant, rather than through the more stringent wiretap laws.

  Those who operate or own a "protected computer" can give permission for authorities to intercept communications carried out on the machine, thus bypassing the requirements of the Wiretap statute. The definition of a "protected computer" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) and broadly encompasses those computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including ones located outside the United States. The law governing obligatory and voluntary disclosure of customer communications by Cable companies was altered to allow agencies to demand such communications under U.S.C. Title 18 provisions relating to the disclosure of electronic communications (chapter 119), pen registers and trap and trace devices (chapter 206) and stored communications (121), though it excluded the disclosure of cable subscriber viewing habit.

  Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" searches, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard" — and it may be extended at the court's discretion.

  Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order. These are seen as important by the Department of Justice because they believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 09, 2007....

  TS: i meant that i'm not sure it says warrants rather than subpoenas are required.
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Nov 09, 2007....

  ed: Well, I took that from the Seattle Times article I linked. I haven't read the actual bill yet.
  
  Sheltercrow: Some of those things make sense to me but others do not -- especially the "protected computer" bit and the "sneak and peek" searches, the latter of which Brandon Mayfield was a victim.
  

• kelly said on Nov 11, 2007....

  TinSoldier touched upon something that has intrigued me for some time.  He mentioned encryption technology.  It baffles me slightly why more people don't use either PGP or GPG (the latter being the free Gnu equivalent of Pretty Good Privacy) more.  I suppose the answer is you have to learn something new and also that email programs do not offer obvious support for it.
  
  
  It also requires that you get a copy of someone's public key before you can encrypt a message to that person.  Still, encryption tech is out there and we should be using it more than we do.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 11, 2007....

  http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html

  Sneak and Peek Search Warrants Before the USA Patriot Act

  A sneak and peek search warrant (also called a covert entry search warrant or a surreptitious entry search warrant) is a search warrant authorizing the law enforcement officers executing it to effect physical entry into private premises without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge and to clandestinely search the premises; usually, such entry requires a stealthy breaking and entering.

  The USA Patriot Act’s Authorization of Sneak and Peek Warrants

  Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act, enacted on Oct. 26, 2001, contains the first express statutory authorization for the issuance of sneak and peek search warrants in American history.  Section 213 is not restricted to terrorists or terrorism offenses; it may used in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors.  Section 213 is one of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act excepted from the Act’s sunset provisions.  To the extent Section 213 may conflict with Rule 41, Section 213 prevails.

   

  A "protected computer” in “18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)”

  (e) As used in this section

  (1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;

  (2) the term "protected computer" means a computer

  (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or

  (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communications, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;

  “and broadly encompasses those computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including ones located outside the United States. The law governing obligatory and voluntary disclosure of customer communications by Cable companies was altered to allow agencies to demand such communications under U.S.C. Title 18 provisions relating to the disclosure of electronic communications (chapter 119), pen registers and trap and trace devices (chapter 206) and stored communications (121), though it excluded the disclosure of cable subscriber viewing habit.”

  disclosure of electronic communications (chapter 119)

  http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2511

  http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_chapter119_.html

  pen registers and trap and trace devices (chapter 206)

  http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/partii_chapter206_.html

  stored communications (121)

  http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2701

  http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_chapter121_.html

   

  I think this means any communications company that provide an internet connection like verison, AT&T, etc

• sheltercrow said on Nov 11, 2007....

  Protected computer

  http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm

  (2) the term "protected computer" means a computer--

  (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or

  (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;

   

  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html

  (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—

  (A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);

  (B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or

  (C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Comment on "Is this America?"

Currently tagged	bush civil liberties privacy email the constitution warrants politics (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment