Comments on: Federal judge rules that police can search your e-mail without telling you

By: jed1977

jed1977 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:47:21 +0000

Easy enough. Take your email paste it into notepad. Use the find and replace all function. Replace AEIO with 4310 or something similiar (one at a time). This will help to scramble key word searches. Better yet use GNUPG and convince your friends to do the same.

By: jaysh

jaysh — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:07:39 +0000

I’m not really surprised at all by the judge’s ruling in this case. As far as I can tell this was a pretty straightforward application of the law: the cops got a warrant and complied with all the necessary requirements.

Even if the ISP is acting like the postal service, the government can still search your snail mail as long as they get a warrant. I frankly don’t know if they have to tell you they did it if all they do is read it and then send it on its way.

And the fact that we send more information via email than via FedEx shouldn’t matter either. The Constitution doesn’t relate the degree of privacy protection given to a particular communication medium to how much we use it.

I could see having a problem with the underlying statutes and Supreme Court opinions the decision is based on for allowing this type of notice-free search, but that’s a broader public policy issue that goes beyond what the judge was asked to do here.

By: steeltoad

steeltoad — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:51:15 +0000

An even more frightening proposition has been presented to Canadians. If passed in parliament police will be able to snoop e-mails and internet activity “WITHOUT A WARRANT”! The abuse of existing police power in Canada is reported on a daily basis yet police claim, without providing any evidence, that warrants hamper their investigations! If they are permitted to do this without the requirement of the only document that can link them to and limit their activities they will almost certainly use this power to undermine justice and further their own causes. Completely outside of the realm of crime fighting they will be able to obtain any private information, not necessarily concerning illegal activities, and consequently dispense it where it will further their personal and collective goals. Corporate and government information, indiscretions etc.; all the information that we expect to be private may be available to police. Oh yes, they assure us they can be trusted and our information will be secure! If ever there was a case for military grade encryption of my Christmas letter to grandma this is it.

By: Steve Weinberg

Steve Weinberg — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:09:54 +0000

Everybody except criminals wants police to be granted tools to solve crimes. My T/S blog is meant to support law enforcement personnel who care about justice first, and conviction rates later. But wrongful convictions abound in some jurisdictions partly because police investigations lack transparency, because police are allowed to lie to suspects, because police have become skillful at neutralizing pro forma Miranda warnings.

If the ruling by this judge becomes the law in other jurisdictions (perhaps it won’t), the First Amendment and the privacy implications are huge. Those implications will probably receive lots of attention, as they should. But I wonder if the implications for the fair functioning of the criminal justice system will receive the discussion called for.

By: Steve Vockrodt

Steve Vockrodt — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:59:04 +0000

I can already hear the rationalization from certain segments of our public on this: “Well, if you’re not doing anything wrong, then why worry about it?”

The next question that always goes unanswered is this: “Who defines what is wrong?”

By: Federal judge rules that police can search your e-mail without telling you | World of Ulysses

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:46:48 +0000

[...] If the po-po suspect that your e-mail reveals evidence of criminal activity, they can get a search warrant and start word-searching your archives without your ever being told. So says Oregon judge Michael Mosman. full story [...]

By: Tweets that mention Kashmir Hill - The Not-So Private Parts – Federal judge rules that police can search your e-mail without telling you - True/Slant -- Topsy.com

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:53:07 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ian Prentice Balom, Kashmir Hill. Kashmir Hill said: Federal judge rules that police can search your e-mail without telling you @trueslant http://tinyurl.com/yh5onty [...]