3 ms·

This is why US Army is forcing work related communications onto an employer owned instant message application. It may or may not be more secure, but it is priv

This is why US Army is forcing work related communications onto an employer owned instant message application. It may or may not be more secure, but it is privately owned and always official business. The employer can take legal action for improper disclosure of messages from that system. It also means other segments of government can never use these messages in any kind of legal proceeding without a prior valid search warrant.

dragonwriter 11mo ago
> US Army [...] employer owned instant message application [...] it is privately owned Uh, no. At least one of these things is not true. > It also means other segments of government can never use these messages in any kind of legal proceeding without a prior valid search warrant. Unless there is a special legal provision applicable to specifically this system, no, it doesn't. That certainly is not a consequence of being an employer-owned, for-official-business-only system of a government agency, in fact, it is the opposite of what that would generally means, which is that it is already government information from the start and law enforcement (federal or state) wouldn't need a warrant to use it against individuals. (This is separate from whatever process might be necessary if the Army preferred not to share it, for security or other instiutional, rather than Fourth Amendment, reasons.)
- austin-cheney 11mo ago
  That is incorrect. Soldiers in the Army have a implicit fourth amendment protection on all US Army data systems. To overcome that some data system owners require a signature on a policy statement that allows unrestricted monitoring. Those are often called user access agreements. I have been told the Air Force operates in the opposite. I am not sure what any of that has to do with state government access. From a legal perspective state government intrusion of a federal data system for evidence gathering is equivalent to a foreign nation. The federal government will happily share this information provided the proper administrative authorizations, but there is no unrestricted access.

dragonwriter 11mo ago

> US Army [...] employer owned instant message application [...] it is privately owned Uh, no. At least one of these things is not true. > It also means other segments of government can never use these messages in any kind of legal proceeding without a prior valid search warrant. Unless there is a special legal provision applicable to specifically this system, no, it doesn't. That certainly is not a consequence of being an employer-owned, for-official-business-only system of a government agency, in fact, it is the opposite of what that would generally means, which is that it is already government information from the start and law enforcement (federal or state) wouldn't need a warrant to use it against individuals. (This is separate from whatever process might be necessary if the Army preferred not to share it, for security or other instiutional, rather than Fourth Amendment, reasons.)

austin-cheney 11mo ago
That is incorrect. Soldiers in the Army have a implicit fourth amendment protection on all US Army data systems. To overcome that some data system owners require a signature on a policy statement that allows unrestricted monitoring. Those are often called user access agreements. I have been told the Air Force operates in the opposite. I am not sure what any of that has to do with state government access. From a legal perspective state government intrusion of a federal data system for evidence gathering is equivalent to a foreign nation. The federal government will happily share this information provided the proper administrative authorizations, but there is no unrestricted access.