4 ms·

No tight philosophical reason. It's just that historically, the court has held that there is no expectation of privacy once you share it with a third party (as

No tight philosophical reason. It's just that historically, the court has held that there is no expectation of privacy once you share it with a third party (as long as they get it via subpoena from the third party). Is this a good idea? Personally, I don't think so. But US law works on precedent, and the 4th amendment was written when there was no concept of privacy that wasn't spatially determined. That is why it says you have a right "to be secure in their [your] persons, houses, papers, and effects". Yet another example where the constitution is woefully outdated and obsolete, but if you say that you get skinned alive because it was immaculately conceived by gods, and we are unfit to alter or improve the work of our ancestral giants.

superuser2 13y ago
Why are emails and text messages not considered papers? Did SCOTUS decide that "papers" can only mean ink on dead trees?
- hga 13y ago
  Don't know about text messages, but emails are the logical equivalent of sending postcards. If you except privacy when you don't even hide your words in an envelope you're going to be disappointed.
  - secabeen 13y ago
    Most major providers support opportunistic SSL for server-to-server SMTP connections, and nearly all providers require SSL from the client (either HTTPS or SMTPS/IMAPS). In that case, would that show an expectation of privacy that would allow 4th amendment protection for email contents in-transit?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      No, because the e-mail providers see and store the message in plain text.
      - hga 13y ago
        To further analogize this to postcards, no one's worried about your mail being seen when it's stuffed in a mailbag that's riding in a truck that the USPS takes some care to make sure it doesn't get stolen (e.g. always behind lock and key). Using SSL for all the hops between organizations amounts to the same thing.
- rayiner 13y ago
  No, electronic documents are widely considered to be "papers" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. Your e-mails, sitting on your laptop, are definitely covered by the 4th amendment. The problem comes in when you send that e-mail in clear text over the internet, where a bunch of people at your ISP can see it, where a bunch of people at Google can see it, where a bunch of people at the recipient's ISP can see it, etc. You don't have an expectation of privacy when you take your private information and put it in the hands of others. Whether it's an e-mail or ink on dead trees is irrelevant. If I printed out my e-mails and shipped them to Google, the government would be able to subpoena them without a warrant.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    >and shipped them to Google USPS is a third party. Why are physical letters protected? At an organization like Google which is bound to have some internal controls, wouldn't an employee opening your email be analogous to the USPS opening an envelope?
    - coryrc 13y ago
      Because there are explicit laws covering the protection of letters sent through USPS. We could make such laws covering ISPs, if our representatives wanted to.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I'm not talking about a letter intercepted en-route. I'm talking about a letter once it has been delivered to Google and is sitting on their premises, like your e-mail does once it's delivered via the SSL connection. The government can subpoena those papers just as they can subpoena the papers relating to your financials held by your accountants, etc.
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    "The problem comes in when you send that e-mail in clear text over the internet, where a bunch of people at your ISP can see it..." So are you saying that if I encrypt my e-mail with the recipient's public PGP key, I have an expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment? (Clearly, my intention in that case would be to make the message readable only to the recipient, not to his e-mail provider.)
tedunangst 13y ago
The constitution isn't as outdated as you'd think. The fourth amendment is to keep the police from barging into your house and rummaging through your stuff while you're sitting down to dinner. It still does that. Compare with third amendment. They're the "don't mess up my stuff" amendments. The government reading your email doesn't interfere with your ability to read your email.
anigbrowl 13y ago
the 4th amendment was written when there was no concept of privacy that wasn't spatially determined Not so. If you give me a letter to carry by horse to your co-conspirator, and the government becomes aware of my role as message-carrier, they could certainly subpoena the communication. This was true in 1813 as it is in 2013. Once you give me custody of the letter, you've taken on the risk that it will be read by people other than yourself or the intended recipient. I might open it to satisfy my own curiosity. I might fall of my horse and the letter could be read by someone who found me lying in the road. I might deliver it to someone else. Unless I'm your lawyer or doctor (in which case I'm held up to certain ethical standards through by my professional peers) then when you hand off the letter you're giving up full control over the dissemination of the contents.
- superuser2 13y ago
  Don't you need a warrant to intercept mail? Not just a subopena?

superuser2 13y ago

Why are emails and text messages not considered papers? Did SCOTUS decide that "papers" can only mean ink on dead trees?

hga 13y ago
Don't know about text messages, but emails are the logical equivalent of sending postcards. If you except privacy when you don't even hide your words in an envelope you're going to be disappointed.
- secabeen 13y ago
  Most major providers support opportunistic SSL for server-to-server SMTP connections, and nearly all providers require SSL from the client (either HTTPS or SMTPS/IMAPS). In that case, would that show an expectation of privacy that would allow 4th amendment protection for email contents in-transit?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    No, because the e-mail providers see and store the message in plain text.
    - hga 13y ago
      To further analogize this to postcards, no one's worried about your mail being seen when it's stuffed in a mailbag that's riding in a truck that the USPS takes some care to make sure it doesn't get stolen (e.g. always behind lock and key). Using SSL for all the hops between organizations amounts to the same thing.
rayiner 13y ago
No, electronic documents are widely considered to be "papers" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. Your e-mails, sitting on your laptop, are definitely covered by the 4th amendment. The problem comes in when you send that e-mail in clear text over the internet, where a bunch of people at your ISP can see it, where a bunch of people at Google can see it, where a bunch of people at the recipient's ISP can see it, etc. You don't have an expectation of privacy when you take your private information and put it in the hands of others. Whether it's an e-mail or ink on dead trees is irrelevant. If I printed out my e-mails and shipped them to Google, the government would be able to subpoena them without a warrant.
- superuser2 13y ago
  >and shipped them to Google USPS is a third party. Why are physical letters protected? At an organization like Google which is bound to have some internal controls, wouldn't an employee opening your email be analogous to the USPS opening an envelope?
  - coryrc 13y ago
    Because there are explicit laws covering the protection of letters sent through USPS. We could make such laws covering ISPs, if our representatives wanted to.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I'm not talking about a letter intercepted en-route. I'm talking about a letter once it has been delivered to Google and is sitting on their premises, like your e-mail does once it's delivered via the SSL connection. The government can subpoena those papers just as they can subpoena the papers relating to your financials held by your accountants, etc.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  "The problem comes in when you send that e-mail in clear text over the internet, where a bunch of people at your ISP can see it..." So are you saying that if I encrypt my e-mail with the recipient's public PGP key, I have an expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment? (Clearly, my intention in that case would be to make the message readable only to the recipient, not to his e-mail provider.)

tedunangst 13y ago

The constitution isn't as outdated as you'd think. The fourth amendment is to keep the police from barging into your house and rummaging through your stuff while you're sitting down to dinner. It still does that. Compare with third amendment. They're the "don't mess up my stuff" amendments. The government reading your email doesn't interfere with your ability to read your email.

anigbrowl 13y ago

the 4th amendment was written when there was no concept of privacy that wasn't spatially determined Not so. If you give me a letter to carry by horse to your co-conspirator, and the government becomes aware of my role as message-carrier, they could certainly subpoena the communication. This was true in 1813 as it is in 2013. Once you give me custody of the letter, you've taken on the risk that it will be read by people other than yourself or the intended recipient. I might open it to satisfy my own curiosity. I might fall of my horse and the letter could be read by someone who found me lying in the road. I might deliver it to someone else. Unless I'm your lawyer or doctor (in which case I'm held up to certain ethical standards through by my professional peers) then when you hand off the letter you're giving up full control over the dissemination of the contents.

superuser2 13y ago
Don't you need a warrant to intercept mail? Not just a subopena?