NationStates Jolt Archive

This just boggles my mind. This isnt some exception for suspected terrorists. They mean EVERYONE. No email privacy rights under Constitution, US gov claims:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/4th-amendment_email_privacy/

I think I'll start lacing my emails with certain keywords. Things like attack, president, kill, assasinate, buttercup, nuclear, biological, chemical, dirty, bombs, weapons, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, revenge. Ya know, stuff of that nature. Just to waste their time reading through spam.


Also, in before 'If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear'

*checks calender* No it's not quite 1984.

Boo!

Maybe their thinking, "Man, we keep getting busted on all the stupid crazy shit we've been doing by our e-mails, we should turn the tables on that one..."

The most depressing thing would be if this happens quietly...

I think I'll start lacing my emails with certain keywords. Things like attack, president, kill, assasinate, buttercup, nuclear, biological, chemical, dirty, bombs, weapons, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, revenge. Ya know, stuff of that nature. Just to waste their time reading through spam.


Also, in before 'If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear'

Dear boss

Just to let you know I'm going to attack this project like a president does a third world country, no more will I kill time or assassinate my future prospects, for life is just a buttercup and I'm on nuclear power. I have a biological, nay chemical need to dirty my hands, drop some bombs on work with my weapons of hard work and application. I'm not going to hide from responsibility like some Osama bin Laden or Saddamn Hussein. Reward will be my revenge.

Yours...

Something like that?

Dear boss

Just to let you know I'm going to attack this project like a president does a third world country, no more will I kill time or assassinate my future prospects, for life is just a buttercup and I'm on nuclear power. I have a biological, nay chemical need to dirty my hands, drop some bombs on work with my weapons of hard work and application. I'm not going to hide from responsibility like some Osama bin Laden or Saddamn Hussein. Reward will be my revenge.

Yours...

Something like that?

I was thinking just having a sort of sig with loads of key terrorist-esque words, but that's much better.

While I think the Court ruled incorrectly, this case is in a substantially more grey area than the OP portrays it. It deals with the expectation that one has to a right of privacy in certain types of electronic communications, specifically those that occur through a company email provider, in which the sender has waived their right to privacy with this specific account.

*checks calender* No it's not quite 1984.

How do you know? The government has been developing a time machine to return us to the glorious days of 1984. They just keep it a secret so no one will ever know... hehehehehe.

While I think the Court ruled incorrectly, this case is in a substantially more grey area than the OP portrays it. It deals with the expectation that one has to a right of privacy in certain types of electronic communications, specifically those that occur through a company email provider, in which the sender has waived their right to privacy with this specific account.

This is not my understanding of the reading...note the reference to comercial ISPs(the ones we almost ALL use) With the last paragraph being the upsetting conclusion.



The most distressing argument the government makes in the Warshak case is that the government need not follow the Fourth Amendment in reading emails sent by or through most commercial ISPs. The terms of service (TOS) of many ISPs permit those ISPs to monitor user activities to prevent fraud, enforce the TOS, or protect the ISP or others, or to comply with legal process. If you use an ISP and the ISP may monitor what you do, then you have waived any and all constitutional privacy rights in any communications or other use of the ISP. For example, the government notes with respect to Yahoo! (which has similar TOS):
Because a customer acknowledges that Yahoo! has unlimited access to her email, and because she consents to Yahoo! disclosing her email in response to legal process, compelled disclosure of email from a Yahoo! account does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The government relied on a Supreme Court case where a bank customer could not complain when the government subpoenaed his cancelled checks from the bank itself and where the Court noted:
The checks are not confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions. All of the documents obtained, including financial statements and deposit slips, contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.
In essence, the government is arguing that the contents of your emails have been voluntarily conveyed to your ISP and that you therefore have no privacy rights to it anymore. In a previous proceeding in Warshak, the government went even further, arguing that automated spam filters, antivirus software, and other automated processes that examine the contents of your email, establish that you cannot possibly expect your communications to be private.

The courts cannot approve warrantless wiretapping.

With a court approval, it is by definition warranted.

There is no reason to request an approval for warranted wiretapping- it is already approved. Ergo, any such request will be for unwarranted wiretapping.

ALL requests, that is, logically, must be for approval of unwarranted warranty.

So the request is to approve *further* wiretapping.

Not that anyone actually taps a wire anymore. How last century!

The fact that the media hypes this term demonstrates how behind the times they are.

It's "Communications Intercepts" now, or "traffic analysis", if the content is not actually viewed.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13190299#post13190299

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13190299#post13190299

Keep your wacky cheese thread out of this. This thread is for rational adults only.

The courts cannot approve warrantless wiretapping.

With a court approval, it is by definition warranted.

There is no reason to request an approval for warranted wiretapping- it is already approved. Ergo, any such request will be for unwarranted wiretapping.

ALL requests, that is, logically, must be for approval of unwarranted warranty.

So the request is to approve *further* wiretapping.

Not that anyone actually taps a wire anymore. How last century!

The fact that the media hypes this term demonstrates how behind the times they are.

It's "Communications Intercepts" now, or "traffic analysis", if the content is not actually viewed.

Clearly you don't understand what is meant by unwarranted wiretapping. It means wiretapping without having to go to a judge and get a warrant.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13190299#post13190299

...

Whats that got to do with anything?

This just boggles my mind. This isnt some exception for suspected terrorists. They mean EVERYONE. No email privacy rights under Constitution, US gov claims:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/4th-amendment_email_privacy/

Wow, how lovely.

By the way, was I the only one to read this as "Warrentless e-mail snogging"?

Wow, how lovely.

By the way, was I the only one to read this as "Warrentless e-mail snogging"?

Now warentless email snogging, that I have no problem with.

The checks are not confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions. All of the documents obtained, including financial statements and deposit slips, contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.
In essence, the government is arguing that the contents of your emails have been voluntarily conveyed to your ISP and that you therefore have no privacy rights to it anymore. In a previous proceeding in Warshak, the government went even further, arguing that automated spam filters, antivirus software, and other automated processes that examine the contents of your email, establish that you cannot possibly expect your communications to be private.
That's fucking ridiculous. The difference between checks and personal emails is like the difference between horses and moose. Hey, you can ride a horse therefore you should be able to ride moose. Actually, it is more like horses and tigers...

This just boggles my mind. This isnt some exception for suspected terrorists. They mean EVERYONE. No email privacy rights under Constitution, US gov claims:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/4th-amendment_email_privacy/

Better not.

...

Whats that got to do with anything?

Good point. It has NOTHING to do with this thread. It is as irrelevant as he claims the United States is/are. He just wants to talk trash about the USA.

Let's be clear. The government's assertions in this case are outrageous and should be the subject of scorn. The courts, however, have uniformly rejected the government's position. The district court ruled the SCA was unconstitutional and put an injunction on the search of e-mails in the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court in a unanimous panel opinion.

For all of the relevant documents, including the court opinions and briefs by the various parties, check this link (http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/warshak_v_usa/).

Maybe their thinking, "Man, we keep getting busted on all the stupid crazy shit we've been doing by our e-mails, we should turn the tables on that one..."

The most depressing thing would be if this happens quietly...

Didn't WYTYG already have a thread about this?
Fuck Bush. Fuck people LIKE Bush. ... Fuck people WHO like Bush.
I'm an American.

How do you know? The government has been developing a time machine to return us to the glorious days of 1984. They just keep it a secret so no one will ever know... hehehehehe.

I really don't want to return to 1984. I was 10 going on 11 back then (which meant going to bed in the summertime at 8 pm, instead of 7pm during the school year). :(

*checks calender* No it's not quite 1984.

Government projects usually overrun their target date.

I think I'll start lacing my emails with certain keywords. Things like attack, president, kill, assasinate, buttercup, nuclear, biological, chemical, dirty, bombs, weapons, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, revenge. Ya know, stuff of that nature. Just to waste their time reading through spam.

Ah yes, it's something I already do regularly. I also do it when transferring money. Things like "Bombs in Billund" when refunding a plane ticket to Denmark and stuff :D It's fun, but I just wonder if I'll ever get questions about this :D

*checks calender* No it's not quite 1984.

Unfortunately it isn't I could sleep all day without thinking about going to the bathroom for taking a crap, getting breastfeeded, make terrible noises to keep my parents awake, ah yes, fun times back then :D

I really don't want to return to 1984. I was 10 going on 11 back then (which meant going to bed in the summertime at 8 pm, instead of 7pm during the school year). :(

You think you had it bad, I hadn't even been concieved then.

I think we should just streamline the system for getting warrants. Set up a section of the DoJ for this purpose. You want to tap a phone or snoop on e-mails? You submit a request for a warrant to the Warrants Section, stating your reasons. If they think the reasons are decent, they approve it, and send it back.

I think we should just streamline the system for getting warrants. Set up a section of the DoJ for this purpose. You want to tap a phone or snoop on e-mails? You submit a request for a warrant to the Warrants Section, stating your reasons. If they think the reasons are decent, they approve it, and send it back.

How is that any different from going to a judge with your reasons?

Let's be clear. The government's assertions in this case are outrageous and should be the subject of scorn. The courts, however, have uniformly rejected the government's position. The district court ruled the SCA was unconstitutional and put an injunction on the search of e-mails in the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court in a unanimous panel opinion.

For all of the relevant documents, including the court opinions and briefs by the various parties, check this link (http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/warshak_v_usa/).
Ah man...I was having fun letting this guys run around panicking! You had to ruin it! :(

I really don't want to return to 1984. I was 10 going on 11 back then (which meant going to bed in the summertime at 8 pm, instead of 7pm during the school year). :(

I was barely a year old. So, it wouldn't matter to me. ;)

You think you had it bad, I hadn't even been concieved then.

I'm older than you? :eek: I always thought you were slightly older than me.

I'm older than you? :eek: I always thought you were slightly older than me.

You're just terribly immature for your age :p

But yeah, You're older than me. If my math is right you're 5 years or so older than me.

I have underwear older then both of you now back on topic :P

You're just terribly immature for your age :p

But yeah, You're older than me. If my math is right you're 5 years or so older than me.

I'm not immature! I just refuse to age gracefully. There's a big difference. ;)

And who says the US government hasn't been snooping in email already? They probably want to avoid the same lid blowing that occurred with the wiretap by saying something themselves...

I have underwear older then both of you now back on topic :P
Ewwwwww
I'm not immature! I just refuse to age gracefully. There's a big difference. ;)
:p

And who says the US government hasn't been snooping in email already? They probably want to avoid the same lid blowing that occurred with the wiretap by saying something themselves...

Oh yeah, that makes sense. Bastards.

People are actually under the delusion that email is a secure method of communication?:confused:

say i thuogh all my e-mails where covered under British Law what would Her Majesty think

You show me yours, and i'll show you mine.

So much for democracy, when the Bush ANTI-AMERICAN administration stole into the WH, they proceeded to inflate and gorge themselves on the taxpayers dime - enlarging the government to the point of gross and un-natural proportions. i don't give a shit about Bush's doctor visits, or how that pathetic kachingy cheney mushroom's heart is, what i really want to know is how the f**k we are going to pay for all of their ill-conceived spending. everytime that dumb moron opens his mouth he mangles the english language because what constitutes as a brain is really a microchip in his ear feeding him lines that he he can't understand. you know that wideeyed look, him leaning to the side, cause he has to listen before he speaks. okay off track again. we need copies of their phone call transcripts and emails. every single one of em, and then you can decide just how low we have sunk. really.:headbang:

I think we should just streamline the system for getting warrants. Set up a section of the DoJ for this purpose. You want to tap a phone or snoop on e-mails? You submit a request for a warrant to the Warrants Section, stating your reasons. If they think the reasons are decent, they approve it, and send it back.

Why bother?

I mean if you are going to jettison the Fourth Amendment why bother having the executive branch go through some extra motions?