they would have to come to me, as I am my own e-mail administrator. It would seem to me in that case I can deny them access based on this passage from the Fifth Amendment, to wit -
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Obviously they could issue a warrant and seize my server, but that would require following due process and showing that a criminal act may have been committed. Even then they can't compel me to divulge passwords or assist in retrieving my e-mail from said server.
Perhaps we all need micro e-mail/cloud storage devices that are owned and controlled by the individual. Power to the people!
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
What about everyone else? They could read your emails at the party you sent them to. Or read the emails being sent to you.
There is also a push to remove email from being a person's. If I understand correctly, email saved at an online account is fair game and the 5th does not apply.
There is also a push to remove email from being a person's. If I understand correctly, email saved at an online account is fair game and the 5th does not apply.
that would require exponential effort as opposed to targeting the person of interest. If they are willing to expend that effort they would probably seize my server.
wrt to the 5th that was my original point. If someone else controls my e-mail the fifth does not apply as there can be no self-incrimination by a third party.
wrt e-mails being sent to me, that doesn't really matter unless the party is replying to something. Even then e-mail headers can be forged. To really make a case a prosecutor needs to nail down that the contents of what is being replied to originated from me. Hard to do w/o my server.
wrt to the 5th that was my original point. If someone else controls my e-mail the fifth does not apply as there can be no self-incrimination by a third party.
wrt e-mails being sent to me, that doesn't really matter unless the party is replying to something. Even then e-mail headers can be forged. To really make a case a prosecutor needs to nail down that the contents of what is being replied to originated from me. Hard to do w/o my server.
If not they can go after your ISP and get it there.
I don't use an ISP as anything other than a pipe. My e-mail is on a physical server under my direct control.
ADDENDUM: Unless you mean monitoring? Again effort involved supercedes the authority outlined and they would probably just yank my physical server. (aka wiretapping)
ADDENDUM: Unless you mean monitoring? Again effort involved supercedes the authority outlined and they would probably just yank my physical server. (aka wiretapping)
Carnivore is alive and well. And if you know about their new data center out west, being at the crossroads of all the major pipes, It's a good assumption.
you are stretching far afield with that one. 
When the singularity occurs our machine overlords will be able to read everything and who really cares about human intelligence agencies then?
When the singularity occurs our machine overlords will be able to read everything and who really cares about human intelligence agencies then?
It was NSA. How about a 240 acre data center:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
A) If Moore's law holds that sucker will be out of date around 2019.
B) If data doesn't cross the border it can't be used in a court of law.
C) Even with decryption powered by kryptonite and exabytes of nearline storage it is the human analytic part of the chain that makes this unfeasible. Unless of course we start watching each other for the state ala 1984.
That change in our culture would be much more frightening than any technical facility.
B) If data doesn't cross the border it can't be used in a court of law.
C) Even with decryption powered by kryptonite and exabytes of nearline storage it is the human analytic part of the chain that makes this unfeasible. Unless of course we start watching each other for the state ala 1984.
That change in our culture would be much more frightening than any technical facility.
But, you will have to explain what is hyperbole. I know the definition, but am missing your point. Not unusual for me.
Was over the top, don't ya think? I'm not saying we aren't being monitored, but I'll bet dollars to donuts it won't be in a national magazine article.
Think air conditioned shipping containers scattered across the landscape at strategic points...
Think air conditioned shipping containers scattered across the landscape at strategic points...
Just that there be due process and a paper trail I can follow to show who did what to me, when, where and why.
That is the whole point of the article. I think Declan was worried reforming the ECPA was not getting enough public scrutiny.
They can sniff non SSL packets all day if they want. As far as I'm concerned, second/third party servers, and the ISPs; should be given the same regard as a post office box. That is - if that is even sacrosanct, any more, under the new surveillance laws! It has already been proven we didn't need all this extra oversight even before 911 - they just had a legal over-burden on inter-governmental communication. That was the only choke point, and then again, as far as I'm concerned that opening of the intercommunication should have been limited too.
How soon the people forget the abuses of the 60s and 70s during the war protest period. The government committed all kinds of abuse, and there was good reason to put these limits on them!
How soon the people forget the abuses of the 60s and 70s during the war protest period. The government committed all kinds of abuse, and there was good reason to put these limits on them!
That's really what they should be looking at. Why differentiate between email and post mail? If they need a warrant to invade my post office box then they need a warrant to invade my email accounts.
But then, this is about enabling the bureaucracy not benefiting "The People".
But then, this is about enabling the bureaucracy not benefiting "The People".
Here is what I found:
"4. Can Postal Inspectors open mail if they feel it may contain something illegal?
First-Class letters and parcels are protected against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be opened without a search warrant. If there is probable cause to believe the contents of a First-Class letter or parcel violate federal law, Postal Inspectors can obtain a search warrant to open the mailpiece. Other classes of mail do not contain private correspondence, and therefore may be opened without a warrant."
https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/faq.aspx
"4. Can Postal Inspectors open mail if they feel it may contain something illegal?
First-Class letters and parcels are protected against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be opened without a search warrant. If there is probable cause to believe the contents of a First-Class letter or parcel violate federal law, Postal Inspectors can obtain a search warrant to open the mailpiece. Other classes of mail do not contain private correspondence, and therefore may be opened without a warrant."
https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/faq.aspx
is in the recipients file system storage.
Hence my first comment. Control your data store, and you have some options when law enforcement comes knocking.
E.G. Keep a .40 near the server and aim for the platters...
E.G. Keep a .40 near the server and aim for the platters...
a nice big electricity surge to fry the drive will make them scream. Now, me, I'm the sort that'll have a drive set up to do that so when the cops walk in they see me frying a drive. They jump in, grab the drive, spend a fortune recovering the data, and find nothing. Cause I'd have set that up just to cost them money for causing me trouble.
Although, I am not sure that distinction has been made in the ECPA. I will try and find out.
As I understand, mail in transit is treated differently than mail at rest. Once your mail is recieved and stored (ie. at rest) it becomes more accessible or some such doesn't it? either way, it's a heck of a good reason to put more effort into encrypted mail and personal storage if not personal smtp servers.
that mail at rest is right back under full protection again. Especially if the server exists at the person/organization of interest. I don't know - since the transmission of non SSL communication is definitely public, they figure it has come outside the purview of privacy. I don't agree with that myself. If the government wants to sniff non-SSL communications? Knock themselves out - I could care less then.
We can assume the sender is aware of SSL or encrypted mail and thus do not expect non-SSL mail to be private.
We can assume the sender is not aware of SSL or encrypted mail and thus does expect mail to be as private as they expect from physical deliveries.
Since we can't really assume all senders are security experts or setup with fully encrypted mail and transport protocols, we have to accept the second option; that the user is not aware and has an expectation of privacy.
The outcome is that sniffing that mail in transit exploits the ignorance of innocent civilians. It's a hostile act towards the person who's privacy is being invaded.
Granted, this then leads into the discussion about why all non-encrypted protocols should be abolished in favor of there existing encrypted version or replacement. We use SSH instead of Telnet for obvious reasons. We should be using smtps without acception between mail servers, pop3s/imaps/smtps from server to client and encrypted email. The real problem is getting mail admins to block non-encrypted transports and mail encryption that requires minimum effort by the user.
We can assume the sender is not aware of SSL or encrypted mail and thus does expect mail to be as private as they expect from physical deliveries.
Since we can't really assume all senders are security experts or setup with fully encrypted mail and transport protocols, we have to accept the second option; that the user is not aware and has an expectation of privacy.
The outcome is that sniffing that mail in transit exploits the ignorance of innocent civilians. It's a hostile act towards the person who's privacy is being invaded.
Granted, this then leads into the discussion about why all non-encrypted protocols should be abolished in favor of there existing encrypted version or replacement. We use SSH instead of Telnet for obvious reasons. We should be using smtps without acception between mail servers, pop3s/imaps/smtps from server to client and encrypted email. The real problem is getting mail admins to block non-encrypted transports and mail encryption that requires minimum effort by the user.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
