Want My E-Mail? Get a Warrant

InternetNews.com ^ | 6/19/2007 | Roy Mark

[oblomov]

The federal government can no longer seize and read e-mail without a search warrant, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. Americans, the court said, have the same reasonable expectation of privacy for e-mail as they do telephone calls and snail mail.

The unanimous decision of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a district court ruling that the government cannot use the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) to secretly obtain stored e-mail without a warrant or prior notice to the e-mail account holder.

"We have little difficulty agreeing with the district court that individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mails that are stored with, or sent or received through, a commercial Internet service provider," the court ruled. "The content of e-mail is something that the user 'seeks to preserve as private,' and therefore 'may be constitutionally protected.'"

The court added, "It goes without saying that like the telephone earlier in our history, e-mail is an ever-increasing mode of private communication, and protecting shared communications through this medium is as important to Fourth Amendment principles today as protecting telephone conversations has been in the past."

[oblomov]

A good decision, in my opinion...

[kevkrom]

The one place where the analogy to postal mail breaks down, however, is that most email users make absolutely NO effort to keep their messages private. Without using encryption on their messaging, it’s the equivalent of sending postal mail solely on postcards instead of in envelopes.

[balch3]

does this mean Congress can’t get ahold of Karl Rove’s emails?

[American_Centurion]

equivalent of sending postal mail solely on postcards instead of in envelopes

Still, it's not legal for you to open someone's mailbox to read any postcards you may find in there. I'm pretty sure that the feds would have to have a warrant to look at it when it's at the post office. IANAL, so I could be wrong.

But I DO encrypt email I expect SOME privacy on, as should others.

[kevkrom]

I’m not saying I disagree with the ruling — far from it. I just wanted to address that particular fallacy., because sooner or later, some clever government authoritarian type is going to use as an argument that people who send messages in plain text over public-access lines shouldn’t have any expectation of privacy.

[Alas Babylon!]

...sooner or later, some clever government authoritarian type is going to use as an argument that people who send messages in plain text over public-access lines shouldn’t have any expectation of privacy.

Well it looks like with this court ruling it's a little too late for some government authoritarian to now make that call.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

I think that every email every sent is setting on a server somewhere. There is another subtle difference. There undoubtedly are Federal Government computer programs which use very complex artificial intelligence which “scan” each message looking for intelligence of interest. When it hits the Internet, it is the wild, wild west. If you believe otherwise I have a bridge in Brooklyn ... Think of the ChiComs, india, and Russia also.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Continuing my previous post concerning electronic communication privacy. Every phone call to a Pentagon prefix is intercepted by the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC and transmitted to Cuba for processing. This was reported in the Washington Post 10 to 15 years ago. The joke was when you called the Pentagon, you didn’t know who was listening.

[haplesswanderer]

Now we just need to get rid of that illegal Patriot Act ...

[zeugma]

awesome ruling. We get so little good news these days...

[HaveHadEnough]

The one place where the analogy to postal mail breaks down, however, is that most email users make absolutely NO effort to keep their messages private. Without using encryption on their messaging, it’s the equivalent of sending postal mail solely on postcards instead of in envelopes.

I totally disagree. Encryption should be analogized to writing postal mail in code.

[mysterio]

Good. They should have to get a specific warrant for any search of anything. This is a step in the right direction.

[highball]

A good decision, in my opinion...

I agree.

The police can still get a warrant if they're tracking a criminal. They just can't treat us all like criminals on a whim.

Nice to see a court respecting our right to privacy. Rare these days.

[wastedyears]

His base dwindles, now the PATRIOT Act is sinking.

[napscoordinator]

I agree! Great decision! Get the government out of our lives!!!!

[montag813]

Ruling sounds good to me, especially when we have an Attorney General who is more interested in porn than in defending the borders. Gonzales is probably a closet pervert.

[free_life]

While I agree with this decision, does the gov now have to inform jihadists when investigating a terrorist cell that they will be reading ‘their’ email?

[xzins]

But it wasn’t addressed to the government.

The same with my snail mail in the garbage can. Just because it’s dumped doesn’t make it, in my mind, addressed to them.

[arderkrag]

Yes, a very good decision.

[Regulator]

does the gov now have to inform jihadists when investigating a terrorist cell that they will be reading ‘their’ email?

No, they just have to get a warrant.