4 ms·
Judge Says Search Warrants for E-mails Must Be ‘Limited’
- hga 13y agoA decision going straight to the end of the 4th Amendment: "... and no Warrants shall issue [without] particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- frank_boyd 13y agoFrank Boyd Says Fibre Cable Tapping Must Be ‘Limited’ He Also Says It's About Mass Surveillance, Not A Specific Technology
- miguelrochefort 13y agoWho cares about what a judge says? It's just a person with a hammer and a robe.
- afarrell 13y agoAnd who has made it their profession to study the principles of justice, how they are reflected in the law, and what the law means. It doesn't mean they're right, but it probably means their opinion is worth reading.
- walid 13y agoIf you don't care about what a judge says in a privacy related situation, considering the privacy violations from the government, then what would you care about?
- angersock 13y ago"He suggested that the search order be limited to certain keywords or that an independent vendor be asked to automate the process of finding relevant material. " Not sure that this is great, but baby steps.
- walid 13y agoAn important step would be to limit the time frame of emails covered by the warrant. I dissected the article hoping this would be mentioned but it wasn't.
- chacham15 13y agoThere are many more limiting factors that can be applied: the sender/recipient being a critical one for me. Why should the government get access to all the emails you send your significant other? In some states there are even laws against that that such a blanket order would circumvent. If the government thinks that he was using email to facilitate the transfer, it should name the parties and their emails and get only the emails between those two parties.
- nanodeath 13y agoThis amused me: "That is to say, use data-mining techniques to not rummage through everything." Data mining basically /is/ rummaging through everything.
- meowface 13y agoWell, the idea is that the computer would do the rummaging and the human viewers would only see the things of relevance. It's debatable, I guess, if there is any constitutional violation if a machine performs an unauthorized yet unbiased search of your property. But I think most could agree it's better than a human doing it all themselves.
- webreac 13y agoDo you accept that a robot performs a search of your house without a warrant because a robot is "unbiased" ?
- azernik 13y agoNo, the point is that the judge determines the precise programming of the robot, and requires that it be programmed to only retrieve certain types of things (e-mails containing certain keywords, in this case).
- gizmo686 13y agoIf the robot doesn't make a mess, and forgets about everything that is irrelevant (IE. not covered by the warrent), then go ahead.