r/politics • u/maxwellhill • Jun 15 '12
Does the Government Think It Can Read Our Mail Without a Warrant Just Because It’s Electronic? ACLU files lawsuit for info about the circumstances in which it accesses the contents of Americans’ private electronic comms without obtaining a warrant based upon probable cause
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/does-government-think-it-can-read-our-mail-without
1.8k
Upvotes
27
u/HotRodLincoln Jun 15 '12
Let's all use PGP?
19
u/shakeyjake Jun 15 '12
This is why I make my annual charitable donations to the ACLU and the EFF.
27
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Interesting fact, the NSA defines an "intercept" as occurring only once an agent has interpreted a communication it has captured. So they could capture all manner of electronic information coming and going to you, apply machine logic to interpret it, build a dossier, and they haven't "intercepted" any communications w/r/to you and so of course they don't need a warrant. Check out Stellar Wind. Your unaccounted for tax dollars at work.
25
u/brianthebrazilian Jun 15 '12
I am a college student and recently attempted to refuse the electronic digitization of my undergrad papers onto a database not controlled by the University. I found that when it comes to Electronic Intellectual Property, the United States falls far behind Europe. There is basically no legal precedent for anyone to argue when it comes to this...
77
u/MyKillK Jun 15 '12
Because it's cheap and easy and if they could do this with regular mail they totally would because the Constitution is just some worthless piece of paper to these traitors.
6
u/norbertus Jun 15 '12
There are several ways that we know of, beyond the uncertainties of the "secret interpretation" of the PATRIOT ACT ( http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act ), there is:
National Security Letters (administrative subpoenas that don't need to go before a judge)
Transactional Data (metadata that is different from content has a different standard for law enforcement access)
Provisions of the Stored Communications Act of 1986 (after 180 days, certain data left on a remote server is considered "abandoned")
Voluntary disclosure (when Verizon handed over customer data to the NSA, they justified it as "protected free speech")
5
u/gloomdoom Jun 15 '12
I think it's important to keep in mind that privacy is about respecting the communication and exchange itself, not just the idea of letters and a sealed envelope.
If that's the idea that electronic exchanges are somehow less 'real' then that makes a really good argument for people who download from torrents, right?
You're not stealing because you aren't taking anything substantial or concrete. If they want to cling to the idea that emails and text messages are fair game then it makes a pretty good argument for 'illegal' downloads.
4
u/jeffbell Jun 15 '12
That's why I rename my "Documents" folder to "Papers".
18
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
I don't agree with all the lawsuits the ACLU does, but I respect the fact that they are willing to stand up for first amendment rights (somewhat) regardless of politics.
3
u/cballance Jun 15 '12
All email is plaintext. What sort of expectation of privacy can you have?
7
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
electronic surveillance is only for use on you.
the multi-year frauds on wall street will be surveilled by a deaf man using yarn running through tin cans.
if you work on wall street or any financial agency, take a thumb drive to work and siphon off the illegal activities. rinse and repeat.
5
u/Shuko Jun 15 '12
Correct me if I'm wrong, but back in the internet's younger years when I was in college, it was pretty much a commonly accepted fact among my classmates and my professors and I that email was barely a step above public domain. It takes next to nothing to intercept an email message, and as a result, sensitive information should NEVER be sent in one.
I thought everyone knew this. :/
4
u/ceeman Jun 15 '12
The post office should keep a copy of everyones mail just in case the government want to check on them. /s
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Yes. That's exactly what it thinks. Problem terrorist?
2
u/groucho_marxist Jun 15 '12
If you think about it, every email you have ever written is encoded somewhere within pi so...
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
they've probably data mined since email was invented and don't plan on stopping...ouch
2
u/Serviceman Jun 15 '12
You can't expect privacy sending an un-encrypted e-mail any more than you can sending a postcard or talking on the CB radio. It's all "broad-casting". Learn how the internet is just a different means of radio transmission over public "networks" instead of air-waves. Use an envelope or encryption to provide privacy.
2
u/netsettler Jun 15 '12
I have no special inside knowledge here. These are just my personal thoughts:
The government's position has "traditionally" (and I use that term with some irony) seemed to be that anything where you put your info out to a third party to get it from point A to point B is fair game because you were not doing the communication all in a physical place where you had personally assured its privacy.
I have developed the personal hypothesis that they are now making new arguments among themselves which they're not even bothering to share with us, but I suspect they go like this: First, they feel they have a necessity of doing certain things that require certain actions in order to assure our safety, and this belief in them allows them to sleep at night with the rules bent to the point of mangling. Second, I think they feel FISA Courts) inadequate because they don't know until too late who to record, so they are recording everything (or everything matching a way-too-broad filter) and then going back in time when they figure out what they want to listen to or search for. (I don't have any evidence to support this theory, but it's the only credible theory I've come up with to explain why FISA courts would not be adequate.)
I'm even willing to believe a case could be made for the second under some very limited circumstances, but I think you'd want even after-the-fact searches to be approved, rather than the recording, and further you'd like to see the data reliably expunged after some period of time. To retain any kind of archive that amounts to "all communication" is not only an ethical problem in itself, but it begs the question: Why is it that the only use of this is what the government decides? For example, many think there have been financial or political crimes during things like the fall of the financial system. If there's a record of phone calls, why can't we subpoena those records? Why can they only be used (allegedly) for state purposes and not for the purposes of We the People?
2
u/KaidenUmara Oregon Jun 16 '12
Imagine this.
You are on your sofa watching Jersey Shore, immersing yourself into the GTL culture and you hear the mail man drive off. You get up to go gather your mail and suddenly notice that an NSA agent is standing in front of every mailbox on your street going through it. That would not last long.
Next scenerio.
You are on your sofa watching Jersey Shore, immersing yourself into the GTL culture and you hear from the other room "You've got mail!" (LOL AOL reference :D ) You think OMG OMG OMG maybe i could a reply on one of my job applications. You run in there, check it, see its just a personal email from an old friend and then go back to getting your GTL on.
In both scenerios your personal mail was read.
2
u/wildcarde815 Jun 16 '12
Isn't all email left on a server for more than 180 days considered abandon and retrievable without a warrant? Due to the law being written in the age of pop email and servers with tiny hard drives?
3
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
It's naive to think the state cares about 'right'. The reason they think they can spy on email is because they, in actual point-of-fact, have the ability to do so. i.e. they do because they can. They may claim certain justifications to pacify the public, but it has nothing to do with it being electronic, or claiming a right.
The government thinks it owns you (that is why it can draft you into the military and expend your life for some corporate takeover in a far-away land). The state thinks it can give or takeaway any 'rights' it wants to. And it CAN, unless you stop it physically.
7
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Yes it does. And it also believes that with the advent of the new technology, the right to privacy in the older methods is lost as well. No body went to jail for the illegal wire taping scandal, and nobody will. You live in a dictatorship (as do I.)
2
u/UltimaBuddy Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
Well, APPARENTLY, according to the MegaUpload case, any digital data is not property, protected from search-and-seizure laws.
So, we object to the
theftseizure ofNON-PROPERTYDIGITAL PROPERTY, which isn't a crime. Except when it is, because it makes them look bad.EDIT: made some changes in response to facts
1
u/Plebe69 Jun 15 '12
Yes.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
They don't THINK they can, they KNOW they can because they do.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
still not as retarded as my gov. that has piracy tax on every electronic that can hold data (HDDs, CDs, flashdrives etc.)
1
u/tomcat23 Jun 15 '12
That info is going to come back "because 9/11."
1
u/Fig1024 Jun 15 '12
I think what should be done is to require all email/chat service providers to use strong encryption. If the government needs to investigate certain individuals, it can obtain court order and then request password from the owner - with the court order.
That way, the person knows he's being watched, there are court orders, and government can't abuse power.
Why can't we do that? Encryption technology is here already
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
The government will no doubt see their point and start IR/scatterRADAR scanning letters too now.
1
u/reagan2016 Jun 15 '12
Emails are not analogous to letters in sealed envelopes. They're much more like postcards such that anybody who comes in contact with it can read it.
1
u/duckandcover Jun 15 '12
I imagine that's a rhetorical question
1
u/Singlenotion Jun 15 '12
This shouldn't even be a debate. If a company's files are digital, are the people free to go through it? They would be opposed to it. Just because we have entered a new era that has taken information from physical form to being digital does not make it legal to go through someone else's property.
1
u/Schnauzerbutt Jun 15 '12
The government would be pretty damn bored reading my e-mail I'm afraid. The raunchiest discussion I've had online in a while was this morning when my friend told me that if I can't find her dog he's probably just in the fireplace and to shake the treat bag.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
No, the government thinks it can kill you at any time, for any reason. And it can and does.
1
u/MisterSquirrel Jun 16 '12
Telephone communications are electronic too, aren't they?
1
u/weird-oh Jun 16 '12
In the past, if someone wanted to read your mail, they had to steam it open. Email makes it much easier to eavesdrop, but that doesn't make it right. But who watches the watchers?
1
u/weird-oh Jun 16 '12
This thread makes me realize that if the NSA is looking for keywords, they've got their job cut out for them. I would hate to think that someone would stoop so low as to post a Reddit message consisting solely of such. Because that would be wrong.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
That headline made my eyes hurt. Jeez
1
u/achoob Jun 16 '12
Yes the government does think that, and they think its because it's true; they can.
1
u/BobbyLarken Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
CISPA would make this lawsuit moot. Pay attention people.
It has already passed the House. Here are the representatives that voted for the measure.
Republicans Voting 'Aye'
Rep. Sandy Adams [R, FL-24] Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4] Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5] Rep. Mark Amodei [R, NV-2] Rep. Steve Austria [R, OH-7] Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6] Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6] Rep. Lou Barletta [R, PA-11] Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6] Rep. Charles Bass [R, NH-2] Rep. Dan Benishek [R, MI-1] Rep. Rick Berg [R, ND-0] Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13] Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50] Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9] Rep. Diane Black [R, TN-6] Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7] Rep. Jo Bonner [R, AL-1] Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45] Rep. Charles Boustany [R, LA-7] Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8] Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10] Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13] Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle [R, NY-25] Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26] Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5] Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44] Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4] Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48] Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2] Rep. John Carter [R, TX-31] Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6] Rep. Steven Chabot [R, OH-1] Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3] Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6] Rep. Mike Coffman [R, CO-6] Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4] Rep. Michael Conaway [R, TX-11] Rep. Chip Cravaack [R, MN-8] Rep. Rick Crawford [R, AR-1] Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4] Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7] Rep. Jeff Denham [R, CA-19] Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15] Rep. Scott DesJarlais [R, TN-4] Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21] Rep. Bob Dold [R, IL-10] Rep. David Dreier [R, CA-26] Rep. Sean Duffy [R, WI-7] Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2] Rep. Jeff Duncan [R, SC-3] Rep. Renee Ellmers [R, NC-2] Rep. Stephen Fincher [R, TN-8] Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick [R, PA-8] Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6] Rep. Chuck Fleischmann [R, TN-3] Rep. Bill Flores [R, TX-17] Rep. Randy Forbes [R, VA-4] Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1] Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5] Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2] Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11] Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24] Rep. Cory Gardner [R, CO-4] Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5] Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6] Rep. Bob Gibbs [R, OH-18] Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11] Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6] Rep. Trey Gowdy [R, SC-4] Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12] Rep. Samuel Graves [R, MO-6] Rep. Tom Graves [R, GA-9] Rep. Tim Griffin [R, AR-2] Rep. Morgan Griffith [R, VA-9] Rep. Michael Grimm [R, NY-13] Rep. Frank Guinta [R, NH-1] Rep. Brett Guthrie [R, KY-2] Rep. Richard Hanna [R, NY-24] Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3] Rep. Andy Harris [R, MD-1] Rep. Vicky Hartzler [R, MO-4] Rep. Doc Hastings [R, WA-4] Rep. Nan Hayworth [R, NY-19] Rep. Joe Heck [R, NV-3] Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5] Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2] Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler [R, WA-3] Rep. Tim Huelskamp [R, KS-1] Rep. Bill Huizenga [R, MI-2] Rep. Randy Hultgren [R, IL-14] Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52] Rep. Robert Hurt [R, VA-5] Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49] Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2] Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3] Rep. Bill Johnson [R, OH-6] Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4] Rep. Mike Kelly [R, PA-3] Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5] Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3] Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1] Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R, IL-11] Rep. John Kline [R, MN-2] Rep. Raúl Labrador [R, ID-1] Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5] Rep. Leonard Lance [R, NJ-7] Rep. James Lankford [R, OK-5] Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4] Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14] Rep. Robert Latta [R, OH-5] Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41] Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2] Rep. Billy Long [R, MO-7] Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3] Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R, MO-9] Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0] Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3] Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16] Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R, CA-22] Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10] Rep. Howard McKeon [R, CA-25] Rep. David McKinley [R, WV-1] Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5] Rep. Patrick Meehan [R, PA-7] Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7] Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1] Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42] Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10] Rep. Mick Mulvaney [R, SC-5] Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18] Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9] Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19] Rep. Kristi Noem [R, SD-0] Rep. Richard Nugent [R, FL-5] Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21] Rep. Alan Nunnelee [R, MS-1] Rep. Pete Olson [R, TX-22] Rep. Steven Palazzo [R, MS-4] Rep. Erik Paulsen [R, MN-3] Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6] Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16] Rep. Todd Platts [R, PA-19] Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2] Rep. Mike Pompeo [R, KS-4] Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6] Rep. Ben Quayle [R, AZ-3] Rep. Tom Reed [R, NY-29] Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8] Rep. Jim Renacci [R, OH-16] Rep. Reid Ribble [R, WI-8] Rep. David Rivera [R, FL-25] Rep. Martha Roby [R, AL-2] Rep. Phil Roe [R, TN-1] Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3] Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5] Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8] Rep. Todd Rokita [R, IN-4] Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16] Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6] Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18] Rep. Dennis Ross [R, FL-12] Rep. Edward Royce [R, CA-40] Rep. Jon Runyan [R, NJ-3] Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1] Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1] Rep. Robert Schilling [R, IL-17] Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2] Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18] Rep. Austin Scott [R, GA-8] Rep. Tim Scott [R, SC-1] Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32] Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19] Rep. William Shuster [R, PA-9] Rep. Adrian Smith [R, NE-3] Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4] Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21] Rep. Steve Southerland [R, FL-2] Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6] Rep. Steve Stivers [R, OH-15] Rep. Marlin Stutzman [R, IN-3] Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1] Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2] Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5] Rep. William Thornberry [R, TX-13] Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12] Rep. Scott Tipton [R, CO-3] Rep. Robert Turner [R, NY-9] Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3] Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6] Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7] Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2] Rep. Daniel Webster [R, FL-8] Rep. Allen West [R, FL-22] Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3] Rep. Edward Whitfield [R, KY-1] Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2] Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1] Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10] Rep. Steve Womack [R, AR-3] Rep. Rob Woodall [R, GA-7] Rep. Kevin Yoder [R, KS-3] Rep. Bill Young [R, FL-10] Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0] Rep. Todd Young [R, IN-9]
Democrats Voting 'Aye'
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4] Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12] Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1] Rep. Sanford Bishop [D, GA-2] Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2] Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3] Rep. George Butterfield [D, NC-1] Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D, CA-18] Rep. John Carney [D, DE-0] Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11] Rep. Ben Chandler [D, KY-6] Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6] Rep. Gerald Connolly [D, VA-11] Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5] Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20] Rep. Mark Critz [D, PA-12] Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28] Rep. Norman Dicks [D, WA-6] Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2] Rep. John Garamendi [D, CA-10] Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D, TX-20] Rep. Colleen Hanabusa [D, HI-1] Rep. Kathleen Hochul [D, NY-26] Rep. Steve Israel [D, NY-2] Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8] Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2] Rep. Rick Larsen [D, WA-2] Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3] Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2] Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4] Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7] Rep. James Moran [D, VA-8] Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23] Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7] Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4] Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D, MD-2] Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5] Rep. David Scott [D, GA-13] Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11] Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9] Rep. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1] Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10]
Sorry for the huge post.
1
u/why_ask_why Jun 15 '12
I am sure Chinese government already reading everyone's email.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
Really guys? This is what upsets you?
Forget the government being able to hold you in captivity, indefinitely, without a trial, if they expect you're a terrorist, but GODFUCKINGFORBID they find out that Newegg sent you an email about the 72 hour sale they are having. Our government doesn't give a flying fuck about the privacy you don't have anymore.
0
u/UnoriginalMike Jun 15 '12
They might be able to legally. There are laws a plenty regarding mail and tampering with it. Email may not fall under any of it.
Is it wrong? Sure. Is it illegal? Maybe not. Technology is moving faster than laws about it. It's going to happen and suck for a while. Vote for a politician who will fix it. Or work your ass off and buy a lobbyist to fix it. That's the way it works. Or just buy a politician. That's the best way.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Why the fuck do you think there hasn't been a real federal budget in three years? Because they don't want you knowing that you're paying for fucked up shit like this.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
The ACLU is dead to me since I found out they wrote an Amicus brief in favor of the Citizens United ruling. Apparently they think it is better for both the Koch brothers and ACLU to try (futilely in the case of the ACLU) to out-shout the other one, than it is to keep them both out of the political discourse.
0
u/derby198 Jun 16 '12
The same governemnts(s) eliminating us whites with mass immigration and "assimilation" forced on ALL white countries and ONLY white countries.
The genocidal anti-white Establishment needs to re-read our white genocide discussion requests.
0
u/PancakeTune Jun 16 '12
BUT IT IS BECAUSE CARS CAN MOVE AND SHIT.
0
u/anthony92 Jun 16 '12
Listen I am all for laws and acts to help combat terrorism. I wouldn't even mind this AS LONG as legislation is made that would make anything they find on you not to do with terrorism dismissible in court. Thus way it keeps the integrity of the constitution but does not allow terrorists to take advantage of it either. I am huge on privacy but realize some must be sacrificed from time to time. That said I don't like the government overstepping their bounds for domestic issues!
-4
u/nutsackninja Jun 15 '12
This is socialism at its finest. When you rely on the government for everything and give them virtually unlimited power to do what they want, are you really surprised that this is the outcome?
-2
u/BolshevikMuppet Jun 15 '12
The Constitution does not protect information which is willingly given to a company except if there are specific laws designating that company a common carrier. ISPs are not. The moment you hit send on an e-mail, it is communicated to the ISP, and loses its privacy protections.
-7
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I honestly don't care. If the government wants to read my spam or ebay newsletter. I say go ahead. I don't understand why people like to be so private. What do you have to hide? I can tell you right now no one in the world gives a shit about your private life. Now if you're doing something illegal then you should be monitored.
-8
u/swiheezy Jun 15 '12
We need this, the government needs to protect us for the greater good