10 ms·

Obama administration wanted warrantless access rights to most US email

191 points by miked 16y ago

ytilibitapmoc 16y ago
If only the silence meant that people were sharpening their pitchforks. Unfortunately, this is the USA -- we would rather die by a thousand paper-cuts than stand up and say "No!"...
- protomyth 16y ago
  I think people will protest what they know about. Regardless of your opinion on the people taking part in the tea party protests, there are a lot of people taking time off work or away from other activities to go to rallies. The economy is the front and center issues right now, and I really don't know what has to happen for online privacy to get a stage. I am more concerned about the organizations that were so vocal during the last administration, since they seem to be out to lunch now. I really think your beliefs about what is right and wrong shouldn't change just because someone else got the job. I guess I want consistency of message and action.
  - roc 16y ago
    > "I am more concerned about the organizations that were so vocal during the last administration, since they seem to be out to lunch now." Which organizations and how has their message or activity changed? Last I checked the EFF and ACLU were rolling right along with their press releases, briefs and lawsuits. > "I really don't know what has to happen for online privacy to get a stage" How about this? Why is this not enough? Why was the revelation of wholesale privacy invasion as in the well-publicized AT&T/San Fran case not enough? Why is the revelation of easy-access warrant-free 'meta-data wiretapping' not enough?
    - protomyth 16y ago
      The press is my biggest concern. "Why is this not enough?" - this is a little higher Maslow's hierarchy then worries about jobs. Plus, the fourth estate has totally failed the people by not going after this. I am still amazed with a 24-hour news cycle how little is covered.
  - RevRal 16y ago
    Some technical understanding of this issue is prerequisite to understanding how the negative consequences outweigh the positive. Most of the tea-bagging protesters are protesting stuff that is way over their head, but they don't need a good technical understanding of since the issues are dumbed down to terms which fit their competence. I'm afraid this issue has been dumbed down as well. "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about." Of course they'll treat this like a once-size fits all psuedo-ratiocination and utter it whenever something about "privacy on the internet" pops up. Basically, I don't think this'll find its way on stage until it's too late. Like roc said, this alone should be enough.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      I really don't believe anything anybody says when they use phrases like "tea-bagging", "tree hugger",or "pinko". I have lived in rural areas most of my life, and I don't think any of the current discussion is over these people's heads. I think it is a comfortable way of dismissing and diminishing people. It makes you feel superior. This has happened since the beginning of the country (ignorant colonists) through the ages (anti-war protestors, suffrage).
      - RevRal 16y ago
        Sorry for the misunderstanding. Just to be clear I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. Just adding to what you said. So you don't like the phrase "tea-bagging" and you don't like someone seemingly decreasing a group of people's relative value. I'm on your side. Saying "tea-bagging" was lazy. Forgive me. As for the second cause for offense (perhaps too strong a word), well someone has to be qualified to make decisions. That's why we're a republic and not a democracy, because a mob (a group of people) can be ignorant. And keep in mind that I was talking about technical understanding, not intelligence. Anyway, I don't really have time for this right now, which is part of the reason I wasn't too careful choosing my words before. And this post will probably turn out to be not-so-fleshed out too, which I don't really care about right now.
        protomyth 16y ago
- roc 16y ago
  Particularly when those cuts are delivered by people wrapped in the flag, promising safety. It seems we have healthier debate over the government's ability to pass blanket public-space no-smoking laws, than the executive's new-found legal ability to ignore the constitution, the judicial and the legislative at its whim. You can get tens of thousands to protest the deficit, or health care reform, or gay rights - but the steady erosion of our rights barely raises an eyebrow.
  - weaksauce 16y ago
    It's the whole "I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care if they are watching me" standpoint that most people have. The problem of course is that the people watching you are the ones who decide what's wrong. Of course there is the famous other quote: "If I have nothing to hide then why do you need to watch me?" or something like that.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      with a complicated enough legal system, everyone is a criminal
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    - mixmax 16y ago
      Maybe you meant this: First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up. Pastor Martin Niemöller
      - GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
        I like that quote. It is a good description of what happens when people ignore basic rights infringements. The core of the US's glory is our rights, and if we let them be taken away for any reason... well... that's not why I came to the US. In any case, what was the quote from Ben Franklin? "He who lets his rights be taken away in the name of security, deserves neither."
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Obama selected Joe "I wrote the Patriot Act" Biden as his VP. This is the same Joe Biden who tried to ban Turing machines because they could be used to encrypt files that the government would be unable to crack. Plenty of people knew this, but voted for Obama anyway. For many people, "the government is violating privacy rights" is not a genuine policy position. It's just a club to beat their political opponents with.
  - lutorm 16y ago
    "Plenty of people knew this, but voted for Obama anyway." In all fairness, given the range of options offered for American voters, I'd also have gone with Obama even if I didn't agree on everything.
    - sophacles 16y ago
      This is not how US politcs works. If you agree with a side on some points and disagree with others you are ostracized by all groups. It is stupid, but unfortunately the US is a place where (for example) you are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion or pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. If you are pro both or anti both, almost everyone hates you.
      - cgranade 16y ago
        You almost had a point here, but your unfortunate choice of terms demonstrates a lot of what's wrong with US politics. Rather than referring to the pro-choice movement as such, you've adopted a label, pro-abortion, that is simply misleading. Here we have a debate over women's reproductive health rights, and it gets reduced to misleading soundbites like "pro-abortion." In the same way, I think much of what is being protested in this thread comes from the false dichotomy between "pro-security" and "anti-security" that ignores how important the ideals of personal rights are to the debate. US politics is well-characterized by a practiced reduction of complex political issues to misleading soundbites.
    - bradbeattie 16y ago
      Just goes to highlight why electoral reform is important. When we start talking about more expressive ballots (i.e. expressing more than just a tactical first preference), your options aren't nearly as limited.
- kunley 16y ago
  On the contrary, living in Europe I see you in the US as a great example of society which dares to stand up and say "No!". By comparison, you are exceptionally well-educated, conscious and actively taking care of your rights.
  - redsymbol 16y ago
    Thanks for these kind words, I appreciate that! (I'm a US citizen.)
  - justlearning 16y ago
    how so? if I may ask. Living in the US, I accept the claim that not many get together to say "No". Compare to Asian/European countries where the slightest rift creates huge protests. To cite UK as an example, we always hear British Airways going on strikes(not saying it's a good/bad thing); When was the last time we heard such a thing in the US? I often bring this up in conversations and a common argument thrown at me is that US is an individualistic society - neighbors are strangers to each other. Not all are interested in the big picture to change things. The common man in the US, lured by the media is content in accepting stories on the face value. I have this friend who listens to the radio archives of 60s/70s and often cites "Weather Underground" as an example of changing face of US. could you provide some cases where in the last 20 years you see "US as a great example of society which dares to stand up and say "No!""
    - tjic 16y ago
      > Living in the US, I accept the claim that not many get together to say "No". Compare to Asian/European countries where the slightest rift creates huge protests. What gives you the impression that "the slightest rift causes huge protests" in Asia and Europe?
    - kunley 16y ago
      You're kidding. It happens all the time. I will be oversimplifying now, but still my observation is that in western Europe most people who oppose to something are those for whom it's a way of life, like leftists (or, contrary, extreme right-wing people). Insane example: people who created Baader-Meinhof, they didn't remotely know the real sides of life of the people they supposedly represented; they just found a way to utilize rage and pump their egos. On the other hand there are post-communist countries, where I come from, where most of the people just don't care; they look at the west, want to become a middle class and they choose to be opportunistic. But in the US people, common folk -- not any extremists, even if they just want to be a middle class, are quite good informed what they want, what the govt should do for them and what not, and are caring of it. This is deeply rooted in a foundation of the US. Maybe you will have a clue what I have in mind when you compare the bureaucracy needed to create and maintain a business in the US and in the EU.
- danudey 16y ago
  There have been crazies ranting about how the government reads all your e-mail for years. Now that they're ACTUALLY trying to do that, no one is listening, because it's the same message as before. If the people spouting unfounded conspiracy theories all the time would just shut the hell up, then maybe people wouldn't see this as crying wolf.
  - tjic 16y ago
    > There have been crazies ranting about how the government reads all your e-mail for years. Yeah, those of us who were protesting Bill Clinton and Al Gore's backing of the Clipper Chip 17 years ago were just lunatics. It's not like we managed to stop a horrible government program or anything. It's YOU young heroes who are the first ones EVER to stand up for your rights against government monitoring communications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - metamemetics 16y ago
    I'm not sure if they read all email, but they definitely warrantlessly monitored telecommunications during the Bush administration, severely enough that our government had to pass a bill saying you couldn't sue your phone company for breaking surveillance laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT&T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT&T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
tptacek 16y ago
First, this title editorializes the article, and summarizes it too aggressively. Second, while I agree that there's a problem here, the DOJ doesn't simply want "warrantless access rights" to "most US email". What it's claiming is more subtle: that mail that is older than a certain threshold and that has been open requires only a court order, and not a bona fide search warrant.
- tc 16y ago
  You misread. They are claiming that mail older than 181 days or mail that has been opened falls under the lower standard. Edit: To your main point, I think your emphasis on the fact there is still a court order is misplaced. Of what practical value is a court order if there is no burden to show probable cause (instead only 'relevance to an ongoing investigation'), and you have no opportunity to challenge (or even know about) the order. How many requests under such a standard do you really think are going to be turned down?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    You're right. Thanks! But, I wasn't moved to comment by the 181 day standard or the "opened" standard, both of which are, excuse my bluntness, retarded. The real issue I have is the fact that there's still a court order involved.
- mtinkerhess 16y ago
  I'm confused. According to Wikipedia, a search warrant is a court order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    There is a subtle but important difference in what they mean by the two. For a search warrant you have to demonstrate "probable cause" - i.e. that the evidence you expect to find is in the emails. For a simple court order (which would just be an order to hand over something) they only have to demonstrate suspicion.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
eplanit 16y ago
I'll echo the advice I heard from Phillip Zimmermann back in the early 1990s: If everyone consistently used encryption for all their email (that's 'everyone', and 'all'), then the effectiveness of government access to email would be lowered to a near-moot level. The sheer complexity and resource requirements to decrypt _all_ email traffic would exceed the government's capabilities. I know the NSA has incredible capabilities....but not that incredible. Yes, I know this creates a new moving target. However, that beats being a sitting duck, though.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  Another solution would be everyone using their own mail server (which itself uses TLS). Mail still isn't encrypted, but all the tunnels they travel through would be. But I guess this is just as hard as encrypting one's email, given the number of people which don't even mind having their mail systematically analysed by a big, profitable company.
  - danudey 16y ago
    Even that wouldn't help if your server is hosted in the US. If they really want access to your e-mail, they can just have your hosting provider give them access (or get the data for them), and under the Patriot act, they can't even tell you about it. Another other solution would be to use e-mail providers (or hosting solutions) outside of the country. Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto, for example, have excellent connection to the US fibre networks (my company has its own pipe from Level 3 from Seattle to Vancouver). Host a server there, and no amount of government intervention is going to get your data, and hosting companies here (well, the good ones) won't give your data up without a subpoena or a warrant (and are able to tell you).
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      By "own mail server", I meant a server which is behind your own walls: at home. Of course having a server behind the walls of a remote company isn't much better that using Gmail.
- 16y ago
CWuestefeld 16y ago
I can't help but notice the irony in the current top of the HN current story page. 2. Obama administration wants warrantless access rights to most US email (cnet.com) 3. Thousands of webcam images have been found in the school district being sued (philly.com) It's pretty clear to me that even the most well-intentioned government powers eventually wind up being used in the most sinister and disturbing ways. Edit: for posterity, the other story is at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1270579 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1270579
- protomyth 16y ago
  The webcam story blowing up is probably a good answer to roc's question about "Why is this not enough?". If they find something that sends some rage into the community, then I would expect this to bubble up again.
ErrantX 16y ago
Wait. What do they need for emails older than 181 days? I wasn't actually aware of that limit. Slightly worrying.
lkijuhyghjm 16y ago
Does anybody seriously doubt that they don't already do this ?
- r0s 16y ago
  I believe this was the reason for the telecom immunity sell-out: http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-27/bay-area/17190307_1_obama-s-justice-department-wiretap-program-immunity http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-27/bay-area/17190307_1_ob...
btilly 16y ago
What is the real difference between this and what China was trying to do to gmail? The government wants to get access to private emails of people they don't like without having to demonstrate real evidence that the person has done anything wrong. The biggest difference to my eyes is that the one targets "human rights activists who would like to bring down the government" while the other targets "terrorists". Yeah, yeah. There is the whole "we're just going to take the emails". However China only went down that route after Western companies got leery of handing emails over due to the negative publicity that was incurred when Yahoo did so a few years back.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  The difference is simple. This is being hashed out in a courtroom. And has a high liklihood of not happening. :-)
  - roboneal 16y ago
    Good point. However, the similarity is also just as simple - the "instincts" of our Federal government is not all that different than the Chinese Communist government.
jdrock 16y ago
"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" Am I missing something here? How is web-based email not in electronic storage? Where is it then?
- btilly 16y ago
  Lawyers who don't understand technology are trying to convince a judge who doesn't understand technology that technology works in impossible ways. News at 11.
- billybob 16y ago
  It's in the cloud, silly. See, the way it works is, clouds are flimsy things, so it's easy to just run tubes right through them and it doesn't even hurt. All the poor Justice Department wants is to run its own tube through the cloud before the terrorists do!
- rationalbeaver 16y ago
  What, your email isn't set to 'auto-print-then-delete-upon-open'?
- inerte 16y ago
  Depends on how you've defined "electronic storage" and its relation to email. Like Bill Clinton whom never had sex with Lewinsky, because sex means two reproductive organs touching and not the mouth. PS: I didn't read the definition, just exemplifying how the legal system (sometimes) works.
joeycfan 16y ago
Surprise! It's to fight the Four Horsemen of the Internet Apocalypse - Terrorism, Piracy, Kiddy porn and Hate...
nopassrecover 16y ago
We were already taught at uni that the NSA gathers, scans and records (albeit temporarily) all email that passes through US servers.
davidmurphy 16y ago
I am extremely disappointed in the Obama Administration and outraged. This is unacceptable and we as a society MUST push back and demand this be stopped.
ackkchoo 16y ago
Update from the bottom of the article: "the Obama administration withdrew its request for warrantless access to the complete contents of the Yahoo Mail accounts under investigation." http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002722-38.html?tag=mncol;txt http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002722-38.html?tag=mncol...
korch 16y ago
So it's probably time to pull all my email out of Gmail and onto my own email server. At least the gov't hasn't yet routed around that basic personal liberty and property right. Surely many geeks will be moving away from freemium webmail that's wide open to the gov't, but where will they be going? Does anyone know of a good open-source Gmail front-end clone? If somehow this doesn't exist, open-source developers unite, let's do this!
- korch 16y ago
  It's also relevant to understand how we got here, a read a little history to avoid repeating it. An oldie but goodie: The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html The book is about the incident where the Feds first raised the legal issue of reading anyone's email without a warrant, and in a way it became the war that launched a thousand Internet legal advocacy organizations; which is where we are right now.
stretchwithme 16y ago
Obama and Bush are the same in so many ways.
rmundo 16y ago
I wonder if it's time we started pushing for encrypted email as a default. Mail/Calendar/Documents hosted in encrypted form online, and can only be decrypted on personal devices owned by users themselves. I really don't trust any machines other than my own when it comes to entering passwords. Do you?

191 points by miked 16y ago

If only the silence meant that people were sharpening their pitchforks. Unfortunately, this is the USA -- we would rather die by a thousand paper-cuts than stand up and say "No!"...

protomyth 16y ago
I think people will protest what they know about. Regardless of your opinion on the people taking part in the tea party protests, there are a lot of people taking time off work or away from other activities to go to rallies. The economy is the front and center issues right now, and I really don't know what has to happen for online privacy to get a stage. I am more concerned about the organizations that were so vocal during the last administration, since they seem to be out to lunch now. I really think your beliefs about what is right and wrong shouldn't change just because someone else got the job. I guess I want consistency of message and action.
- roc 16y ago
  > "I am more concerned about the organizations that were so vocal during the last administration, since they seem to be out to lunch now." Which organizations and how has their message or activity changed? Last I checked the EFF and ACLU were rolling right along with their press releases, briefs and lawsuits. > "I really don't know what has to happen for online privacy to get a stage" How about this? Why is this not enough? Why was the revelation of wholesale privacy invasion as in the well-publicized AT&T/San Fran case not enough? Why is the revelation of easy-access warrant-free 'meta-data wiretapping' not enough?
  - protomyth 16y ago
    The press is my biggest concern. "Why is this not enough?" - this is a little higher Maslow's hierarchy then worries about jobs. Plus, the fourth estate has totally failed the people by not going after this. I am still amazed with a 24-hour news cycle how little is covered.
- RevRal 16y ago
  Some technical understanding of this issue is prerequisite to understanding how the negative consequences outweigh the positive. Most of the tea-bagging protesters are protesting stuff that is way over their head, but they don't need a good technical understanding of since the issues are dumbed down to terms which fit their competence. I'm afraid this issue has been dumbed down as well. "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about." Of course they'll treat this like a once-size fits all psuedo-ratiocination and utter it whenever something about "privacy on the internet" pops up. Basically, I don't think this'll find its way on stage until it's too late. Like roc said, this alone should be enough.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    I really don't believe anything anybody says when they use phrases like "tea-bagging", "tree hugger",or "pinko". I have lived in rural areas most of my life, and I don't think any of the current discussion is over these people's heads. I think it is a comfortable way of dismissing and diminishing people. It makes you feel superior. This has happened since the beginning of the country (ignorant colonists) through the ages (anti-war protestors, suffrage).
    - RevRal 16y ago
      Sorry for the misunderstanding. Just to be clear I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. Just adding to what you said. So you don't like the phrase "tea-bagging" and you don't like someone seemingly decreasing a group of people's relative value. I'm on your side. Saying "tea-bagging" was lazy. Forgive me. As for the second cause for offense (perhaps too strong a word), well someone has to be qualified to make decisions. That's why we're a republic and not a democracy, because a mob (a group of people) can be ignorant. And keep in mind that I was talking about technical understanding, not intelligence. Anyway, I don't really have time for this right now, which is part of the reason I wasn't too careful choosing my words before. And this post will probably turn out to be not-so-fleshed out too, which I don't really care about right now.
      - protomyth 16y ago
roc 16y ago
Particularly when those cuts are delivered by people wrapped in the flag, promising safety. It seems we have healthier debate over the government's ability to pass blanket public-space no-smoking laws, than the executive's new-found legal ability to ignore the constitution, the judicial and the legislative at its whim. You can get tens of thousands to protest the deficit, or health care reform, or gay rights - but the steady erosion of our rights barely raises an eyebrow.
- weaksauce 16y ago
  It's the whole "I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care if they are watching me" standpoint that most people have. The problem of course is that the people watching you are the ones who decide what's wrong. Of course there is the famous other quote: "If I have nothing to hide then why do you need to watch me?" or something like that.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    with a complicated enough legal system, everyone is a criminal
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - mixmax 16y ago
    Maybe you meant this: First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up. Pastor Martin Niemöller
    - GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
      I like that quote. It is a good description of what happens when people ignore basic rights infringements. The core of the US's glory is our rights, and if we let them be taken away for any reason... well... that's not why I came to the US. In any case, what was the quote from Ben Franklin? "He who lets his rights be taken away in the name of security, deserves neither."
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Obama selected Joe "I wrote the Patriot Act" Biden as his VP. This is the same Joe Biden who tried to ban Turing machines because they could be used to encrypt files that the government would be unable to crack. Plenty of people knew this, but voted for Obama anyway. For many people, "the government is violating privacy rights" is not a genuine policy position. It's just a club to beat their political opponents with.
- lutorm 16y ago
  "Plenty of people knew this, but voted for Obama anyway." In all fairness, given the range of options offered for American voters, I'd also have gone with Obama even if I didn't agree on everything.
  - sophacles 16y ago
    This is not how US politcs works. If you agree with a side on some points and disagree with others you are ostracized by all groups. It is stupid, but unfortunately the US is a place where (for example) you are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion or pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. If you are pro both or anti both, almost everyone hates you.
    - cgranade 16y ago
      You almost had a point here, but your unfortunate choice of terms demonstrates a lot of what's wrong with US politics. Rather than referring to the pro-choice movement as such, you've adopted a label, pro-abortion, that is simply misleading. Here we have a debate over women's reproductive health rights, and it gets reduced to misleading soundbites like "pro-abortion." In the same way, I think much of what is being protested in this thread comes from the false dichotomy between "pro-security" and "anti-security" that ignores how important the ideals of personal rights are to the debate. US politics is well-characterized by a practiced reduction of complex political issues to misleading soundbites.
  - bradbeattie 16y ago
    Just goes to highlight why electoral reform is important. When we start talking about more expressive ballots (i.e. expressing more than just a tactical first preference), your options aren't nearly as limited.
kunley 16y ago
On the contrary, living in Europe I see you in the US as a great example of society which dares to stand up and say "No!". By comparison, you are exceptionally well-educated, conscious and actively taking care of your rights.
- redsymbol 16y ago
  Thanks for these kind words, I appreciate that! (I'm a US citizen.)
- justlearning 16y ago
  how so? if I may ask. Living in the US, I accept the claim that not many get together to say "No". Compare to Asian/European countries where the slightest rift creates huge protests. To cite UK as an example, we always hear British Airways going on strikes(not saying it's a good/bad thing); When was the last time we heard such a thing in the US? I often bring this up in conversations and a common argument thrown at me is that US is an individualistic society - neighbors are strangers to each other. Not all are interested in the big picture to change things. The common man in the US, lured by the media is content in accepting stories on the face value. I have this friend who listens to the radio archives of 60s/70s and often cites "Weather Underground" as an example of changing face of US. could you provide some cases where in the last 20 years you see "US as a great example of society which dares to stand up and say "No!""
  - tjic 16y ago
    > Living in the US, I accept the claim that not many get together to say "No". Compare to Asian/European countries where the slightest rift creates huge protests. What gives you the impression that "the slightest rift causes huge protests" in Asia and Europe?
  - kunley 16y ago
    You're kidding. It happens all the time. I will be oversimplifying now, but still my observation is that in western Europe most people who oppose to something are those for whom it's a way of life, like leftists (or, contrary, extreme right-wing people). Insane example: people who created Baader-Meinhof, they didn't remotely know the real sides of life of the people they supposedly represented; they just found a way to utilize rage and pump their egos. On the other hand there are post-communist countries, where I come from, where most of the people just don't care; they look at the west, want to become a middle class and they choose to be opportunistic. But in the US people, common folk -- not any extremists, even if they just want to be a middle class, are quite good informed what they want, what the govt should do for them and what not, and are caring of it. This is deeply rooted in a foundation of the US. Maybe you will have a clue what I have in mind when you compare the bureaucracy needed to create and maintain a business in the US and in the EU.
danudey 16y ago
There have been crazies ranting about how the government reads all your e-mail for years. Now that they're ACTUALLY trying to do that, no one is listening, because it's the same message as before. If the people spouting unfounded conspiracy theories all the time would just shut the hell up, then maybe people wouldn't see this as crying wolf.
- tjic 16y ago
  > There have been crazies ranting about how the government reads all your e-mail for years. Yeah, those of us who were protesting Bill Clinton and Al Gore's backing of the Clipper Chip 17 years ago were just lunatics. It's not like we managed to stop a horrible government program or anything. It's YOU young heroes who are the first ones EVER to stand up for your rights against government monitoring communications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- metamemetics 16y ago
  I'm not sure if they read all email, but they definitely warrantlessly monitored telecommunications during the Bush administration, severely enough that our government had to pass a bill saying you couldn't sue your phone company for breaking surveillance laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT&T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT&T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

tptacek 16y ago

First, this title editorializes the article, and summarizes it too aggressively. Second, while I agree that there's a problem here, the DOJ doesn't simply want "warrantless access rights" to "most US email". What it's claiming is more subtle: that mail that is older than a certain threshold and that has been open requires only a court order, and not a bona fide search warrant.

tc 16y ago
You misread. They are claiming that mail older than 181 days or mail that has been opened falls under the lower standard. Edit: To your main point, I think your emphasis on the fact there is still a court order is misplaced. Of what practical value is a court order if there is no burden to show probable cause (instead only 'relevance to an ongoing investigation'), and you have no opportunity to challenge (or even know about) the order. How many requests under such a standard do you really think are going to be turned down?
- tptacek 16y ago
  You're right. Thanks! But, I wasn't moved to comment by the 181 day standard or the "opened" standard, both of which are, excuse my bluntness, retarded. The real issue I have is the fact that there's still a court order involved.
mtinkerhess 16y ago
I'm confused. According to Wikipedia, a search warrant is a court order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant
- ErrantX 16y ago
  There is a subtle but important difference in what they mean by the two. For a search warrant you have to demonstrate "probable cause" - i.e. that the evidence you expect to find is in the emails. For a simple court order (which would just be an order to hand over something) they only have to demonstrate suspicion.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

eplanit 16y ago

I'll echo the advice I heard from Phillip Zimmermann back in the early 1990s: If everyone consistently used encryption for all their email (that's 'everyone', and 'all'), then the effectiveness of government access to email would be lowered to a near-moot level. The sheer complexity and resource requirements to decrypt _all_ email traffic would exceed the government's capabilities. I know the NSA has incredible capabilities....but not that incredible. Yes, I know this creates a new moving target. However, that beats being a sitting duck, though.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
Another solution would be everyone using their own mail server (which itself uses TLS). Mail still isn't encrypted, but all the tunnels they travel through would be. But I guess this is just as hard as encrypting one's email, given the number of people which don't even mind having their mail systematically analysed by a big, profitable company.
- danudey 16y ago
  Even that wouldn't help if your server is hosted in the US. If they really want access to your e-mail, they can just have your hosting provider give them access (or get the data for them), and under the Patriot act, they can't even tell you about it. Another other solution would be to use e-mail providers (or hosting solutions) outside of the country. Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto, for example, have excellent connection to the US fibre networks (my company has its own pipe from Level 3 from Seattle to Vancouver). Host a server there, and no amount of government intervention is going to get your data, and hosting companies here (well, the good ones) won't give your data up without a subpoena or a warrant (and are able to tell you).
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    By "own mail server", I meant a server which is behind your own walls: at home. Of course having a server behind the walls of a remote company isn't much better that using Gmail.
16y ago

CWuestefeld 16y ago

I can't help but notice the irony in the current top of the HN current story page. 2. Obama administration wants warrantless access rights to most US email (cnet.com) 3. Thousands of webcam images have been found in the school district being sued (philly.com) It's pretty clear to me that even the most well-intentioned government powers eventually wind up being used in the most sinister and disturbing ways. Edit: for posterity, the other story is at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1270579 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1270579

protomyth 16y ago
The webcam story blowing up is probably a good answer to roc's question about "Why is this not enough?". If they find something that sends some rage into the community, then I would expect this to bubble up again.

ErrantX 16y ago

Wait. What do they need for emails older than 181 days? I wasn't actually aware of that limit. Slightly worrying.

lkijuhyghjm 16y ago

Does anybody seriously doubt that they don't already do this ?

r0s 16y ago
I believe this was the reason for the telecom immunity sell-out: http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-27/bay-area/17190307_1_obama-s-justice-department-wiretap-program-immunity http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-27/bay-area/17190307_1_ob...

btilly 16y ago

What is the real difference between this and what China was trying to do to gmail? The government wants to get access to private emails of people they don't like without having to demonstrate real evidence that the person has done anything wrong. The biggest difference to my eyes is that the one targets "human rights activists who would like to bring down the government" while the other targets "terrorists". Yeah, yeah. There is the whole "we're just going to take the emails". However China only went down that route after Western companies got leery of handing emails over due to the negative publicity that was incurred when Yahoo did so a few years back.

ErrantX 16y ago
The difference is simple. This is being hashed out in a courtroom. And has a high liklihood of not happening. :-)
- roboneal 16y ago
  Good point. However, the similarity is also just as simple - the "instincts" of our Federal government is not all that different than the Chinese Communist government.

jdrock 16y ago

"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" Am I missing something here? How is web-based email not in electronic storage? Where is it then?

btilly 16y ago
Lawyers who don't understand technology are trying to convince a judge who doesn't understand technology that technology works in impossible ways. News at 11.
billybob 16y ago
It's in the cloud, silly. See, the way it works is, clouds are flimsy things, so it's easy to just run tubes right through them and it doesn't even hurt. All the poor Justice Department wants is to run its own tube through the cloud before the terrorists do!
rationalbeaver 16y ago
What, your email isn't set to 'auto-print-then-delete-upon-open'?
inerte 16y ago
Depends on how you've defined "electronic storage" and its relation to email. Like Bill Clinton whom never had sex with Lewinsky, because sex means two reproductive organs touching and not the mouth. PS: I didn't read the definition, just exemplifying how the legal system (sometimes) works.

joeycfan 16y ago

Surprise! It's to fight the Four Horsemen of the Internet Apocalypse - Terrorism, Piracy, Kiddy porn and Hate...

nopassrecover 16y ago

We were already taught at uni that the NSA gathers, scans and records (albeit temporarily) all email that passes through US servers.

davidmurphy 16y ago

I am extremely disappointed in the Obama Administration and outraged. This is unacceptable and we as a society MUST push back and demand this be stopped.

ackkchoo 16y ago

Update from the bottom of the article: "the Obama administration withdrew its request for warrantless access to the complete contents of the Yahoo Mail accounts under investigation." http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002722-38.html?tag=mncol;txt http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002722-38.html?tag=mncol...

korch 16y ago

So it's probably time to pull all my email out of Gmail and onto my own email server. At least the gov't hasn't yet routed around that basic personal liberty and property right. Surely many geeks will be moving away from freemium webmail that's wide open to the gov't, but where will they be going? Does anyone know of a good open-source Gmail front-end clone? If somehow this doesn't exist, open-source developers unite, let's do this!

korch 16y ago
It's also relevant to understand how we got here, a read a little history to avoid repeating it. An oldie but goodie: The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html The book is about the incident where the Feds first raised the legal issue of reading anyone's email without a warrant, and in a way it became the war that launched a thousand Internet legal advocacy organizations; which is where we are right now.

stretchwithme 16y ago

Obama and Bush are the same in so many ways.

rmundo 16y ago

I wonder if it's time we started pushing for encrypted email as a default. Mail/Calendar/Documents hosted in encrypted form online, and can only be decrypted on personal devices owned by users themselves. I really don't trust any machines other than my own when it comes to entering passwords. Do you?