4 ms·

This is the most informed post here so far. A couple of important points to add. The problem is 2703(f). It allows a government entity to request a snapshot of

This is the most informed post here so far. A couple of important points to add. The problem is 2703(f). It allows a government entity to request a snapshot of a user's account "pending the issuance of a court order or other process", meaning that 180 days later, the government can just issue a subpoena - they get their foot in the door and then come back later with the lowered bar, and only need a subpoena. Same effect as not having warrant protection. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 It's important to point out that the 90-day notification can be renewed indefinitely, pursuant to 2703(f)(2), which is probably a breach of what the 4th Amendment intended.

shawn-butler 14y ago
The concurring opinion authored by Judge Keith was directly on point of your second paragraph regarding the indefinite renewal constituting an illegal wiretap. It concludes that 2703(f) is vacuous as it is clearly fails constitutionality for this reason. [0] I'm sure the irony that such an important case is based on the illegal money laundering of a company peddling a penis-enlarging drug scam will not be lost. Remember Enzyte and the smiling Bob ads? I'm still amazed how easily they got so many merchant accounts given their chargeback rates but I guess that's what fraud will get you. [0]: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0377p-06.pdf http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0377p-06.pdf (concurring opinion begins at page 95).