No email privacy rights under Constitution, US gov claims

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
Date: November 5, 2007 8:39:24 AM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] No email privacy rights under Constitution, US  
gov claims

[Note:  This item comes from reader Ken DiPietro.  DLH]

Original URL: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/4th-amendment_email_privacy/ 
>

No email privacy rights under Constitution, US gov claims
By Mark Rasch, SecurityFocus
Published Sunday 4th November 2007 12:02 GMT
On October 8, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth  
Circuit in Cincinnati granted the government's request for a full- 
panel hearing in United States v. Warshak case centering on the right  
of privacy for stored electronic communications. At issue is whether  
the procedure whereby the government can subpoena stored copies of  
your email - similar to the way they could simply subpoena any  
physical mail sitting on your desk - is unconstitutionally broad.

This appears to be more than a mere argument in support of the  
constitutionality of a Congressional email privacy and access scheme.  
It represents what may be the fundamental governmental position on  
Constitutional email and electronic privacy - that there isn't any.  
What is important in this case is not the ultimate resolution of that  
narrow issue, but the position that the United States government is  
taking on the entire issue of electronic privacy. That position, if  
accepted, may mean that the government can read anybody's email at any  
time without a warrant.

What is Privacy?
In a seminal case (Katz v. United States in 1963) the US Supreme  
Court, over the strenuous objections of the US government, upheld the  
right of the user of a payphone to claim a right to privacy in the  
contents of those communications. The Court held that the Fourth  
Amendment right to be secure in your "persons, house, places and  
effects" against unreasonable searches and seizures protected people,  
not just places. Thus, to determine whether you had a right against  
unreasonable seizure - a kind of privacy right - the court adopted a  
two-pronged test: did you think what you were doing was private and is  
society willing to accept your belief as objectively reasonable?

[snip]


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com