5 ms·

IMO there is no expectation of privacy with email. Maybe only false expectation. If you go into someone's home and take part in private discussions, you probabl

by jneal 12y ago

IMO there is no expectation of privacy with email. Maybe only false expectation. If you go into someone's home and take part in private discussions, you probably don't anticipate being recording in any manner.

threatofrain 12y ago
I actually think there is a reasonable expectation to privacy, and that most people, from senators to elementary school teachers, believe that email is technically secure, meaning that "normal people" could not read their email even if they wanted to, at least not without resorting to "hacking" or "spying". In fact, one might say that email is more secure than normal mail, because normal mail doesn't have a password and is default delivered to a publicly accessible mailbox. If a neighbor wishes to invade your privacy via your email, how do they do so? Probably by entering your password somehow. If that person wants to steal your physical mail, how do they do so? By walking up to your mailbox when nobody is looking. Also, email at least has a very plausible chance of being encrypted; even if you don't know what that means, your workplace may be doing it for you. But companies, including financial or accountancy firms, don't encrypt physical email to their customers. I think most reasonable people have the belief that email is safer than mail, and in 2015 I think they might be right.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  Many people believe that the world is flat. Doesn't mean that it is. There has never, ever been any expectation set that internet email is private. There have been many examples in the broader media that show how one might compromise email. Also, you have no way to assess the quality of the email service provider, network provider, or client environment. Postal mail is more secure for 99% of the public for several reasons, including: - A paper envelope is tamper-evident. My dad used to correspond with radio operators in the Warsaw Pact... envelope tampering was trivial for me to detect as a 5-year old. - Stolen mail is stolen. You don't get the message. Detecting a pattern of missing mail is pretty easy. - If you're not a police organization, tracking postal mail metadata is risky. Bystanders will notice somebody rifling through a mailbox every day. There really isn't a way to surveil outbound letters. - It's a serious felony to tamper with mail. Linking physical mail theft to a perpetrator is pretty straightforward. Also, Postal Inspectors take mail integrity very seriously, sometimes too seriously. With electronic crimes, you probably have a 1/100 chance of finding a cop who understands your complaint AND has the means to do anything about it. - It's much easier to implement physical security practices/procedures that keep secrets transmitted by mail secret than via digital means.
  - waitwaitwhay 12y ago
    > There has never, ever been any expectation set that internet email is private. Of course there has.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      Only if your expectation is that mailing your thoughts on what amounts to a digital postcard that passes through dozens of hands before it arrives to the destination is private.
      - waitwaitwhay 12y ago
        What I meant was that most people assume it is secure. I mean only a few % at most has any clue how email works. I suspect most of my colleagues who has been working as developers for decades don't know that email may pass through dozens of hands. Of course if you know how it works you know its not secure, but very few people knows how it works.
  - barrkel 12y ago
    There has never, ever been any expectation set that internet email is private Most normal people believe, intuitively, that email is private. You need to enter a username and password to send it, and you need to do the same at the other end to read it. Prima facie private, like physical mail. Sure, you may believe the corporation providing your email service could look at your text, but a delivery company could do the same thing to your physical mail; it's just harder (but not impossible) to read physical mail without evidence of tampering. WRT legal definitions, everything is a bit woolier. Case law sets precedent, and precedent can be based on circumstances in the past that were different than today. People using email used to be more technical, more aware of how insecure the whole thing actually is without a lot of effort. And service providers have a vested interest in disclaiming legal liability for breach of privacy; they'd much rather the public believe things are private, but not have any legal expectation of privacy. That way, they get to have their cake and eat it.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
- rayiner 12y ago
  At least under the 4th amendment, expectation of privacy must be objectively reasonable, not subjective. I.e. If everyone is misinformed about how email is sent around in plain text, and expect privacy out of ignorance, then that belief can be objectively unreasonable even if it's widely held.
  - sukilot 12y ago
    But then the 4h means nothing! Any communication that can technically be eavesdropped is "onbjectively" not private. So where is there a legal expectation of privacy?
    - azernik 12y ago
      It's completely based on precedent (i.e. court rulings). According to Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy] one appeals court has ruled that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for e-mail, but that is something that the Supreme Court can overrule or not depending on what the Justices' personal take on the situation is.
  - threatofrain 12y ago
    Where did you get that information? From Wikipedia? Could you put the paragraph + link here so I can find it? I ask only because I looked it up myself and couldn't find that reasonable expectation to privacy solely hinges on the actual objective reality of the situation; instead there are also subjective considerations. And even the definition of "objective" in "expectation to privacy" is what general society holds to be true -- it doesn't speak to demonstrating reality of privacy.
rgbrenner 12y ago
there is no expectation of privacy with email. Maybe only false expectation. I'm not sure why this was voted down... not only has the Supreme Court said repeatedly that there's no expectation of privacy since you're trusting the information to a third party... but email isn't even transmitted securely. If anyone expects their email to be private (and isn't using PGP or something), they have a false expectation of privacy. It's unfortunate that's the case, but that is reality.
- sukilot 12y ago
  Voice communications among common people have never been encrypted, yet have been the major class of privacy-protected communications for the 20th century.

by jneal 12y ago

threatofrain 12y ago

I actually think there is a reasonable expectation to privacy, and that most people, from senators to elementary school teachers, believe that email is technically secure, meaning that "normal people" could not read their email even if they wanted to, at least not without resorting to "hacking" or "spying". In fact, one might say that email is more secure than normal mail, because normal mail doesn't have a password and is default delivered to a publicly accessible mailbox. If a neighbor wishes to invade your privacy via your email, how do they do so? Probably by entering your password somehow. If that person wants to steal your physical mail, how do they do so? By walking up to your mailbox when nobody is looking. Also, email at least has a very plausible chance of being encrypted; even if you don't know what that means, your workplace may be doing it for you. But companies, including financial or accountancy firms, don't encrypt physical email to their customers. I think most reasonable people have the belief that email is safer than mail, and in 2015 I think they might be right.

Spooky23 12y ago
Many people believe that the world is flat. Doesn't mean that it is. There has never, ever been any expectation set that internet email is private. There have been many examples in the broader media that show how one might compromise email. Also, you have no way to assess the quality of the email service provider, network provider, or client environment. Postal mail is more secure for 99% of the public for several reasons, including: - A paper envelope is tamper-evident. My dad used to correspond with radio operators in the Warsaw Pact... envelope tampering was trivial for me to detect as a 5-year old. - Stolen mail is stolen. You don't get the message. Detecting a pattern of missing mail is pretty easy. - If you're not a police organization, tracking postal mail metadata is risky. Bystanders will notice somebody rifling through a mailbox every day. There really isn't a way to surveil outbound letters. - It's a serious felony to tamper with mail. Linking physical mail theft to a perpetrator is pretty straightforward. Also, Postal Inspectors take mail integrity very seriously, sometimes too seriously. With electronic crimes, you probably have a 1/100 chance of finding a cop who understands your complaint AND has the means to do anything about it. - It's much easier to implement physical security practices/procedures that keep secrets transmitted by mail secret than via digital means.
- waitwaitwhay 12y ago
  > There has never, ever been any expectation set that internet email is private. Of course there has.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    Only if your expectation is that mailing your thoughts on what amounts to a digital postcard that passes through dozens of hands before it arrives to the destination is private.
    - waitwaitwhay 12y ago
      What I meant was that most people assume it is secure. I mean only a few % at most has any clue how email works. I suspect most of my colleagues who has been working as developers for decades don't know that email may pass through dozens of hands. Of course if you know how it works you know its not secure, but very few people knows how it works.
- barrkel 12y ago
  There has never, ever been any expectation set that internet email is private Most normal people believe, intuitively, that email is private. You need to enter a username and password to send it, and you need to do the same at the other end to read it. Prima facie private, like physical mail. Sure, you may believe the corporation providing your email service could look at your text, but a delivery company could do the same thing to your physical mail; it's just harder (but not impossible) to read physical mail without evidence of tampering. WRT legal definitions, everything is a bit woolier. Case law sets precedent, and precedent can be based on circumstances in the past that were different than today. People using email used to be more technical, more aware of how insecure the whole thing actually is without a lot of effort. And service providers have a vested interest in disclaiming legal liability for breach of privacy; they'd much rather the public believe things are private, but not have any legal expectation of privacy. That way, they get to have their cake and eat it.
- vertex-four 12y ago
rayiner 12y ago
At least under the 4th amendment, expectation of privacy must be objectively reasonable, not subjective. I.e. If everyone is misinformed about how email is sent around in plain text, and expect privacy out of ignorance, then that belief can be objectively unreasonable even if it's widely held.
- sukilot 12y ago
  But then the 4h means nothing! Any communication that can technically be eavesdropped is "onbjectively" not private. So where is there a legal expectation of privacy?
  - azernik 12y ago
    It's completely based on precedent (i.e. court rulings). According to Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy] one appeals court has ruled that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for e-mail, but that is something that the Supreme Court can overrule or not depending on what the Justices' personal take on the situation is.
- threatofrain 12y ago
  Where did you get that information? From Wikipedia? Could you put the paragraph + link here so I can find it? I ask only because I looked it up myself and couldn't find that reasonable expectation to privacy solely hinges on the actual objective reality of the situation; instead there are also subjective considerations. And even the definition of "objective" in "expectation to privacy" is what general society holds to be true -- it doesn't speak to demonstrating reality of privacy.

rgbrenner 12y ago

there is no expectation of privacy with email. Maybe only false expectation. I'm not sure why this was voted down... not only has the Supreme Court said repeatedly that there's no expectation of privacy since you're trusting the information to a third party... but email isn't even transmitted securely. If anyone expects their email to be private (and isn't using PGP or something), they have a false expectation of privacy. It's unfortunate that's the case, but that is reality.

sukilot 12y ago
Voice communications among common people have never been encrypted, yet have been the major class of privacy-protected communications for the 20th century.