5 ms·

the rights of the U.S. government are determined by the constitution of the U.S. the 4th amendment of the constitution makes it perfectly clear that the govern

the rights of the U.S. government are determined by the constitution of the U.S. the 4th amendment of the constitution makes it perfectly clear that the government can only receive a warrant when they can establish probable cause of criminal activity AND that the warrant is specific and particular. no blanket searches.

pflats 13y ago
Unfortunately, precedent holds that intercepting stuff broadcast over the wires is not a search. "In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
- erichocean 13y ago
  Unfortunately, precedent holds that… While I can see why lawyers and judges should care about that bit of information, I completely fail to see why the common man should. Bad precedents, destined to be overturned, are created all the time. Even the Supreme Court overturns its own "precedents". So while I agree that info is not completely useless, it's not actually relevant to the question of what the common man should do, because that doesn't change: he should do what's right and just, regardless of the present position of the state.
- metaphorm 13y ago
  I believe that statute is the reason why Lavabit considered it legal to provide metadata information only. Numbers dialed is a form of metadata. The contents of the call (or email in this case) is another thing entirely. Thats really the basis of the appeal.
- shawn-furyan 13y ago
  IANAL, but "reasonable expectation of privacy" sounds like a default position when no expectation has been set between the customer and the service provider. In this particular case, there was an explicit expectation of privacy set out in the terms of service, and in fact that expectation was the entire justification for charging for the service amid a proliferation of free competitors. Of course my interpretation could differ from established case history, or even with a technical legal reading of that particular clause, but there seems to be a logical argument there (whether or not there's a legal one).
mikeyouse 13y ago
Right. The government had a specific and particular warrant to a single account on the Lavabit service. Lavabit denied them access to that account. So the government requested broader access.
- metaphorm 13y ago
  false. Lavabit declined to hand over its secret keys. The technical design of the system made it so Lavabit did not have a key that could unlock only one user's account. This was not denial of access. This was a technical limitation. The system was specifically designed to have this limitation as a form of privacy protection. That privacy protection ought not be considered illegal though. This is the essence of the 4th amendment. Its the reason this case is going to a court of appeal.

pflats 13y ago

Unfortunately, precedent holds that intercepting stuff broadcast over the wires is not a search. "In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

erichocean 13y ago
Unfortunately, precedent holds that… While I can see why lawyers and judges should care about that bit of information, I completely fail to see why the common man should. Bad precedents, destined to be overturned, are created all the time. Even the Supreme Court overturns its own "precedents". So while I agree that info is not completely useless, it's not actually relevant to the question of what the common man should do, because that doesn't change: he should do what's right and just, regardless of the present position of the state.
metaphorm 13y ago
I believe that statute is the reason why Lavabit considered it legal to provide metadata information only. Numbers dialed is a form of metadata. The contents of the call (or email in this case) is another thing entirely. Thats really the basis of the appeal.
shawn-furyan 13y ago
IANAL, but "reasonable expectation of privacy" sounds like a default position when no expectation has been set between the customer and the service provider. In this particular case, there was an explicit expectation of privacy set out in the terms of service, and in fact that expectation was the entire justification for charging for the service amid a proliferation of free competitors. Of course my interpretation could differ from established case history, or even with a technical legal reading of that particular clause, but there seems to be a logical argument there (whether or not there's a legal one).

mikeyouse 13y ago

Right. The government had a specific and particular warrant to a single account on the Lavabit service. Lavabit denied them access to that account. So the government requested broader access.

metaphorm 13y ago
false. Lavabit declined to hand over its secret keys. The technical design of the system made it so Lavabit did not have a key that could unlock only one user's account. This was not denial of access. This was a technical limitation. The system was specifically designed to have this limitation as a form of privacy protection. That privacy protection ought not be considered illegal though. This is the essence of the 4th amendment. Its the reason this case is going to a court of appeal.