[excon]

Hello:

Let me ask you this. Assuming the Constitution is being violated by BOTH of the listed actions, which one are you willing to put up with, if any? Why?

You may vote once, and your vote will remain confidential.

excon

[tomder55]

I don't know where one concludes that emails are being read without court orders.

Even the broad interpretation of 2703(d) the Holder Justice Dept wants to apply says that it would still require a search warrant to read emails .

[Catsmine]

Big assumption about the emails, Ex. Sheer volume would make that near impossible. I send a dozen a day and get 25-30 spams as well as replies. Are you including AMHD?

[NeedKarma]

Google backs Yahoo in privacy fight with DOJ | Politics and Law - CNET News

For its part, the Justice Department has taken a legalistic approach: a 17-page brief it filed last month acknowledges that federal law requires search warrants for messages in "electronic storage" that are less than 181 days old. But, Assistant U.S. Attorney Pegeen Rhyne writes in a government brief, the Yahoo Mail messages don't meet that definition.

"Previously opened e-mail is not in 'electronic storage,'" Rhyne wrote in a motion filed last month. "This court should therefore require Yahoo to comply with the order and produce the specified communications in the targeted accounts." (The Justice Department's position is that what's known as a 2703(d) order--not as privacy-protective as the rules for search warrants--should let police read e-mail.)

Also:
HowStuffWorks "Can the government read your private e-mails?"

It turns out that the U.S. government has been using the Stored Communications Act (SCA) to read private e-mails without a search warrant. These are e-mails stored on services like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail. If the government wants to read e-mails that on their way to a recipient, they need to have a special type of search warrant, a wiretap order. Wiretap warrants can be difficult to get. So instead of worrying about in-transit e-mails, the government secretly accessed stored e-mails, justifying its conduct under the SCA. Increasingly large amounts of storage space mean that many people never delete e-mails (this writer does so only rarely). So a person's entire history of electronic communication could be available to the government without a judge first signing off on a warrant. ­

[tomder55]

Surprised this isn't all over the Slimes and Compost . They had days of front page coverage when the Patriot Act gave the government access to what books you check out. Why aren't they screaming about the fascist in the White House ?

[Fr_Chuck]

I have to say that those big listening posts that Bush got into issues with, what does one think they were doing before Bush and after Bush.

From my understanding, there were key words that trigger a closer look at many things posted.

And of course the entire idea of where the privacy starts and stops with emails have never really been defined, If they come into your home to search your computer that is one issue, but merely getting it out of the air from electric signals.

Just like the machine that shows the image of people behind walls and in most buildings, courts ruled they can not be used without a warrant as a reason to search but they have and are in use for many other applications.

[Catsmine]

Here you go Ex. Scan them back.

Cell Phone Interceptor and Scanners

[Wondergirl]

the Patriot Act gave the government access to what books you check out.

Public libraries will not divulge your book choice information to anyone unless there is a court order, and even then, librarians make it very difficult for lawyers. We have the choice in our database to retain the names and authors of all of a patron's books ever checked out, but decided to allow the names of only the current book and the one before it to be listed. (Of course, overdue and never returned books are always stuck to a patron's name.) Patrons get mad at us when they ask us to look up the name of a certain book they read three years ago and we can't do it. When we tell them why we can't and why we don't keep such info, they usually calm down.

[excon]

And of course the entire idea of where the privacy starts and stops with emails have never really been defined, If they come into your home to search your computer that is one issue, but merely getting it out of the air from electric signals.

Hello Padre:

The law in question, the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2703, could not be clearer:

"A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant."

A separate provision of the law at 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510(17), explicitly defines "electronic storage" to include "any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication": exactly what one does when one reads an email and leaves it on the server.

At least as important is the application of the seminal 1967 Fourth Amendment case of Katz v. U.S. to email communications. In Katz, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects against government eavesdropping on telephone calls even though such calls are not technically "houses, papers [or] effects"; even though eavesdropping does not constitute a physical search of the individual's property; and even though the telephone lines themselves are the property of the telephone company and not the individual. That is because, explained the Katz Court, "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." **

Moreover, telephone calls had become such a common means of private communications by 1967 that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy as to their contents; thus, "to read the Constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication."

Such reasoning extends at least as much to email.

excon

** I think you were asking about this case the other day, Cats - or is it Katz?

[excon]

Hello again,

Although it may come as a surprise to my right winged buddies, I too, believe the provision requiring me to BUY something is UN Constitutional. Indeed, I don't believe they have the Constitutional power to interfere in ANY way with how we spend our money.

But, they have, legally or not, carved out the power to PREVENT you from buying things. Therefore, whatever Constitutional provision gives them that power, it would seem also gives them the power FORCE you to buy something.

excon

[tomder55]

Public libraries will not divulge your book choice information to anyone unless there is a court order

Of course ! I was addressing the hysterial reaction to the Patriot Act provision.

But, they have, legally or not, carved out the power to PREVENT you from buying things.

Indeed they have .Are you saying then that if they exceed their authority in one aspect of the market they should naturally have the power to exceed their power in other aspects ? I don't think you believe that .

BTW ; if I wasn't expected to pay the costs of the wrecked addict ,share in their medical care ,in their rehab ,the social welfare costs of the person who becomes a permanent ward of the state over the drug abuse... I just might reconsider my position on that person's right to purchase and consume whatever his heart desire.

But we don't live in a country where we let that person shoulder the burden of their poor decision on their own. It isn't an accurate statement to say that person is only hurting themselves now is it ? Do I end up supporting the family that person can no longer support ?

[cdad]

Hello again,

Although it may come as a surprise to my right winged buddies, I too, believe the provision requiring me to BUY something is UN Constitutional. Indeed, I don't believe they have the Constitutional power to interfere in ANY way with how we spend our money.

But, they have, legally or not, carved out the power to PREVENT you from buying things. Therefore, whatever Constitutional provision gives them that power, it would seem also gives them the power FORCE you to buy something.

excon

Do you or anyone here remember this?

EARTHQUAKE: THE LONG ROAD BACK : Revival of State Quake Insurance Proposed - Los Angeles Times

[excon]

Indeed they have .Are you saying then that if they exceed their authority in one aspect of the market they should naturally have the power to exceed their power in other aspects ? I don't think you believe that .

Hello again, tom:

I don't believe that. I didn't use the word "SHOULD". I said that because they carved out the authority in one aspect, they will CLAIM that it gives them the authority in another. I don't agree with that. I'm just telling you what they're going to do. What they SHOULD do, is let me spend my money where ever I want...

I'm not necessarily talking about illegal drugs. I'm talking about ANY proscribed product and/or service. Should there be a meat market in town where they sell UN INSPECTED meat? Sure, as long as they don't lie about it. I don't believe in the nanny state.

excon

[tomder55]

DOJ abandons warrantless attempt to read Yahoo e-mail | Politics and Law - CNET News

Holder flip flopped on this issue for now.

[excon]

Holder flip flopped on this issue for now.

Hello again, tom:

That should be of little comfort to you, unless YOU use Yahoo as your email provider. The ONLY reason we KNOW about the government reading OUR email, is because Yahoo DIDN'T cave when the NSA came a knocking - and God bless 'em for it. YOUR provider, on the other hand, GAVE the government everything it wanted. I presume they still ARE giving it to 'em too, don't you?

I see above that ALL of you like your privacy. Guess what?

excon

[twinkiedooter]

I don't care if anyone reads my emails.

But I do not want to nor will I buy any forced medical coverage period.

I loved reading how the insurance companies are buying into fast food restaurants like MickyD's, BK, etc. If anything they should be shuttering these establishments down if we are forced to pay for fatties and fast food addicts' health problems due to the proliferation of these "poison stations" strategically placed throughout our communities enticing people to eat/consume empty calories and ruining their health. Why should I pay for some fattie's poor choices? They should tax the h*ll out of the fast food restaurants and put THAT money toward the health care scam. Even adding 50 cents per meal would generate a ton of bucks. But no, they have to go after the cigarette smokers with huge taxation and the boozers with huge taxation. The price of a carton of cigarettes for name brand is around $50 a carton here plus state and local tax. Lots of folks stopped smoking as they'd rather put food on the table with that $50 a week. Some people are die hards and just can't quit smoking due to all the addicting additives in the cigarettes. Now if the govt got smart and started taxing the fast food joints an extra 50 cents a meal they'd have their money quota in no time.

That's MY take on this baloney, anyway. If you want your privacy, send a letter by the post office period OR call the person up and actually have a real conversation with them.

[tomder55]

Why would the government read my emails ? I provide much more interesting reading material for them here .

I'd hate to be the gvt desk jocky assigned to read my email .

[excon]

I don't care if anyone reads my emails.

But I do not want to nor will I buy any forced medical coverage period.

why would the government read my emails ? I provide much more interesting reading material for them here .

Hello wingers:

Fortunately, our Constitutional rights aren't based on TRUSTING that government won't do certain things. They're based on what the government CAN'T do. I suppose I could ask you, tom, if you cared whether the government could take away your guns. You certainly wouldn't TRUST 'em with that, would you?

If nothing else, consider the implications of allowing the government to read your emails simply by a vague showing of "relevance" to a criminal investigation, all without (a) any demonstration of probable cause, (b) a warrant from a court, and (c) any notice provided to you that they're doing so. Granting the government such authority would have extremely significant implications for the privacy of Americans' communications.

Now, I realize that you're fixated on the right wing mantra about, if you have nothing to hide, then you don't care if the government snoops. So you denigrate your Fourth Amendment protections. What you DON'T realize, is that by poo pooing the Amendments you DON'T like, you weaken support for the Amendments you DO like. That isn't a difficult concept grasp.

I'd also add, that it's easy to mouth the words you do from the comfort of your couch. But I promise you, that you wouldn't like it very much if the cops stopped by to look at your stuff. That TOO, isn't a difficult concept to grasp, yet it eludes you.

excon

PS> I agree with you, twink. I will not now, nor will I ever STOP buying marijuana. They do NOT have the right to tell me how to spend my money.

PPS> (edited) Maybe, just maybe, if you yelled about your Constitutional rights when they told you that you couldn't buy marijuana, they might not now have the precedent they need that allows them to tell you to buy insurance.

Do you see what I mean by supporting the Constitution in its entirety?

[Wondergirl]

But I promise you, that you wouldn't like it very much if the cops stopped by to look at your stuff. That TOO, isn't a difficult concept to grasp, yet it eludes you.

A few years ago, there was a fender bender in the public lot next to our library. The police were called, and two of them came in to the library to confirm that one of the men in the accident had just been in the library (he had said he had been, but I'm not sure what difference that made as to the facts of the accident). The policemen, with a bit of swagger and gruff voices, then asked the library clerks at the front desk to search the library database for the name of that man and report his personal information to them.

So you see how government can try to get inside your life.

(Btw, the library clerks refused to provide the requested information. A court order would have had to have been issued, and the librarians and the library's attorney would have continued to throw their bodies over the computer in order to prevent such an invasion of privacy.)

[Catsmine]

I'd also add, that it's easy to mouth the words you do from the comfort of your couch. But I promise you, that you wouldn't like it very much if the cops stopped by to look at your stuff. That TOO, isn't a difficult concept to grasp, yet it eludes you.

Have you filed your suit against the Health Insurance bill's Constitutionality yet?

Our Liberal State's Attorney from the People's Republic of Raleigh has declined. Spot me half a mil, Ex, so I can file my own.