3 ms·

You beat me to the punch. That act is 26 years old, and I've never before heard about his little provision in all my reading of discussions on email privacy.

You beat me to the punch. That act is 26 years old, and I've never before heard about his little provision in all my reading of discussions on email privacy. Time and time again, I think, "I should bite the bullet and register a domain name for 10 years to host my own email on, encrypting everything that makes it past the spam blocker." I know, I know. I'm not that interesting a person, especially to the federal government. But it's the principle of the matter, you know? I bought my first firearm 15 years ago solely because it was a right I considered as important as voting and free speech, and I wanted to exercise that right. (Yes, I know this is mostly an American sentiment.)

gknoy 14y ago
How would that stop you from being required to comply with a subpoena to supply old email from sageraven.com (hypothetical)?
- krickle 14y ago
  Presumably the Fifth Amendment, which still protects one from disclosing their password unless the prosecutors have a witness who has seen illegal material on your device.
- pyre 14y ago
  I imagine that it's easier to fight a subpoena directed at you than it is to fight one directed at Google (for example).
  - Evbn 14y ago
    You may be surprised. Google has more legal resources, and less fear off illegal imprisonment. The government had wide latitude for breaking its own laws against individuals.
    - pyre 14y ago
      1. Not all 3rd parties will have Google's level of resources. 2. Not all 3rd parties are going to care enough to do anything other than just roll over and do what that government asks of them. 3. Not all 3rd parties are Google, nor should they be. (as in Google shouldn't be 'the web')
- SageRaven 14y ago
  It puts me in control of the situation. As it is, an over-zealous prosecutor can get my ISP to comply. For personal systems, I assume that it would require an outright lawsuit/prosecution to force my hand to do anything. With competent representation, I assume it would need to be serious business and not a fishing expedition for them to get my email (should I comply at all). And remember, passwords for crypto are still pretty much untested in (US) court. So far as I know, I currently cannot be forced to provide decryption passwords/keys for a court. Contempt might still be an issue, but that's another problem entirely.
dobro 14y ago
>I bought my first firearm 15 years ago solely because it was a right I considered as important as voting and free speech, and I wanted to exercise that right. (Yes, I know this is mostly an American sentiment.) The idea behind that right had to do with the ability of the people to overthrow an oppressive government, not with the ability to have guns per se, e.g as a gun collector or to protect your house from burglars. And, as we know, the utility of guns against an oppresive government today is zero.

gknoy 14y ago

How would that stop you from being required to comply with a subpoena to supply old email from sageraven.com (hypothetical)?

krickle 14y ago
Presumably the Fifth Amendment, which still protects one from disclosing their password unless the prosecutors have a witness who has seen illegal material on your device.
pyre 14y ago
I imagine that it's easier to fight a subpoena directed at you than it is to fight one directed at Google (for example).
- Evbn 14y ago
  You may be surprised. Google has more legal resources, and less fear off illegal imprisonment. The government had wide latitude for breaking its own laws against individuals.
  - pyre 14y ago
    1. Not all 3rd parties will have Google's level of resources. 2. Not all 3rd parties are going to care enough to do anything other than just roll over and do what that government asks of them. 3. Not all 3rd parties are Google, nor should they be. (as in Google shouldn't be 'the web')
SageRaven 14y ago
It puts me in control of the situation. As it is, an over-zealous prosecutor can get my ISP to comply. For personal systems, I assume that it would require an outright lawsuit/prosecution to force my hand to do anything. With competent representation, I assume it would need to be serious business and not a fishing expedition for them to get my email (should I comply at all). And remember, passwords for crypto are still pretty much untested in (US) court. So far as I know, I currently cannot be forced to provide decryption passwords/keys for a court. Contempt might still be an issue, but that's another problem entirely.

dobro 14y ago

>I bought my first firearm 15 years ago solely because it was a right I considered as important as voting and free speech, and I wanted to exercise that right. (Yes, I know this is mostly an American sentiment.) The idea behind that right had to do with the ability of the people to overthrow an oppressive government, not with the ability to have guns per se, e.g as a gun collector or to protect your house from burglars. And, as we know, the utility of guns against an oppresive government today is zero.