3 ms·
From that source: In 1986, the United States Congress updated the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by enacting the Electronic Communications
by aksss 5y ago
From that source:
In 1986, the United States Congress updated the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by enacting the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which included an updated "Wiretap Act" and also extended Fourth Amendment-like protections to electronic communications in Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, known as the Stored Communications Act.
In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court ruled warrants are needed for gathering cell phone tracking information, remarking that cell phones are almost a “feature of human anatomy”, “when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user”. and that
[cell-site location information] provides officers with “an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts” and “provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only [an individual’s] particular movements, but through them [their] familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”[5]
AND
From https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/e-mail-and-warrant-requirements.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/e-mail-and-wa...
Are there Any Laws that Protect Your Email Privacy?
Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), police can access emails without a warrant if the emails are stored in the cloud and at least 180 days old. However, this law is outdated and lawmakers are attempting to pass the E-mail Privacy Act. This would update the ECPA by requiring warrants for all email searches. At the moment, in July 2018, the ECPA has yet to pass.
E-mails that are in remote storage and opened or older than 180 days do not require a warrant. Instead, the police only need to obtain an administrative subpoena. Administrative subpoenas are issued by federal agencies without any approval by a judge, so they are much easier to obtain.
So.. run your own email server in your basement if you're concerned (which would require a warrant). Or try end-to-end encryption solutions.
- perihelions 5y agoThink you're glossing over the distinction between compelling material (by warrant, subpoena, &c.) -- what the Fourth Amendment covers -- and private entities voluntarily giving the government material that third parties have entrusted them. Nothing regulates the latter: that's the third-party doctrine.
- aksss 5y agoThis is true.. not much to be done with the major providers are all in bed with the Feds. I mean, the telcos literally allow the Feds to port mirror all their traffic. End to end encryption on your own encrypted storage perhaps.
- autoexec 5y agoI'm not sure if "allow" is the right word here. Really the NSA can set up another Room 641A at any company they want regardless of that company's wishes and with a national security letter the company can be prevented from even telling anyone (like their customers or the media) about it. I was furious when Obama granted telecom companies immunity from prosecution for their role in the warrantless spying, but really it's not exactly fair to pushing people who are strong-armed into compliance.
- aksss 5y agoPerhaps, but if it became public that my telco was allowing NSA to backdoor comms, I’d say the devil made me do it, too. https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts-extreme-willingness-to-help https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts...
- johnswas 5y agoPresidents are just puppets
- geofft 5y agoThe people you're replying to aren't glossing over it, the posted article (and the comments predicting the end of the European tech industry) is glossing over it. "European Parliament approves mass surveillance" really means "European Parliament suspends portion of privacy law that prevents third parties from voluntarily monitoring information entrusted to them" - as they're able to do in the US. The European Parliament isn't (in this action, at least) compelling anyone to surveil anything.
- 5y ago
- pomian 5y agoThose are great. Thanks for posting a very clear summary of two important points. It seems to be very hard to find and define on your own. Too bad they didn't make the same thing for credit card transactions, which are almost, and becoming more so, part of our anatomy. (Will the rules change if they are (injected chips, for instance.)
- 0x426577617265 5y agoThere is a fairly large caveat to this and it happens to also deal with children. 18 U.S. Code § 2258A - Reporting requirements of providers In short, it requires ESPs to report incidents of child exploitation that they become aware of to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. According to NCMEC's published data there were over 20 million reports in 2020. The latest breakdown by ESP I could find was from 2019, which shows facebook making 15 million reports. https://www.missingkids.org/content/dam/missingkids/gethelp/2019-reports-by-esp.pdf https://www.missingkids.org/content/dam/missingkids/gethelp/... EDIT: Here's the 2020 report: https://www.missingkids.org/content/dam/missingkids/gethelp/2020-reports-by-esp.pdf https://www.missingkids.org/content/dam/missingkids/gethelp/...
- adrianba 5y agoThat's what ECPA says, but the Fourth Amendment does apply to e-mails as well as ECPA. Today, pretty much no significant commercial e-mail provider is going to give up e-mail contents without a warrant, even when over 180 days old. In 2010, the Sixth Circuit held ECPA to be unconstitutional as it relates to email and compelled disclosure without a warrant (at least for large volumes of private email) [0]. This hasn't been tested at the Supreme Court, although the Warshak opinion has been cited approvingly, mostly because providers don't disclose content without a warrant so nobody has had a case to take up. Carpenter shows 4A can protect metadata under some circumstances too (for more than 7 days of CSLI), even if law enforcement obtain a court order, which requires less evidence than a search warrant. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak