4 ms·
Saying "there is nothing definitely illegal" about FedGov asking an email provider to let it snoop on emails without due process is like saying "there is nothin
by declan 13y ago
Saying "there is nothing definitely illegal" about FedGov asking an email provider to let it snoop on emails without due process is like saying "there is nothing definitely wrong in saying bubble sort is the most efficient sorting algorithm." It sounds reasonable only if you're unfamiliar with the topic.
Under the Wiretap Act, an FBI agent who "procures any other person to intercept" or "endeavors to intercept" e-mail without a court order is guilty of a federal felony.
In addition, an email provider may not "knowingly divulge" the contents of email "to any governmental entity" without a court order or emergency situation involving "serious physical injury." Violations are punishable by "imprisonment for not more than 1 year."
These criminal sanctions are one reason why AT&T and other companies that opened their networks to the NSA were so desperate for retroactive legal immunity (especially after the EFF et al. lawsuit). Which Congress dutifully provided.
- rayiner 13y agoI should probably have used "definitely unconstitutional" since I was talking about the constitutional aspect, but in any case the Wiretap Act does not protect e-mail older than 180 days: https://www.cdt.org/issue/wiretap-ecpa https://www.cdt.org/issue/wiretap-ecpa.
- declan 13y agoRe: the Wiretap Act, you're quite right. But fortunately the Fourth Amendment does: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025650-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025650-281.html
- rayiner 13y agoOnly in the sixth circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee).
- declan 13y agoExcept that (from memory) Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo treat it as the law of the land for all U.S. users. And based on the DOJ's twin appearances before congressional committees in the last few months, they're not arguing.