email in your 'home'

[ehorne-zY4eFNvK5D9If6P1QZMOBw at public.gmane.org (Bill Horne)]

Christopher Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:03:52PM -0400, Matthew Gillen wrote:
>   
>> All the more reason to run your own mail server:
>> http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/district-judge-concludes-e-mail-not-protected-by-fourth-amendment/
>> ...
>>     
>>> When a person uses the Internet, however, the user's actions are no
>>> longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting
>>> in private space at all. ... Thus, "private" information is actually being
>>> held by third-party private companies.
>>>       
>> ...
>>     
>>> First, it is uncertain whether we have a reasonable expectation of
>>> privacy in information sent through or stored by ISPs because the Fourth
>>> Amendment does not protect information revealed to third parties.
>>>       
>> If this stands, I imagine it will have the exact same effect as what the
>> British cops say will happen if their 3-strikes law goes into effect:
>> email encryption becomes standard operating procedure for everyone, and law
>> enforcement's job actually gets more difficult:
>> http://techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0254326689.shtml
>>     
>
> Do you really think that most 'criminals' who have something to hide are
> using unencrypted email to transfer that information?
>
> I think that there will be an increased number of people who don't
> really have anything to hide, but have the possibility of being harassed
> -- because their communications are essentially public -- using
> encryption if it becomes the 'default' in mail applications. 
>
> Overall, I don't think this is a bad thing; if this ruling led to
> software changing to use encryption by default, it would help out the
> vast majority of people who have no idea that plain text email
> communication is not private, by making it so.
>
> That said, I expect that this won't change much; I certainly wouldn't
> have expected my email to be protected against search and seizure based
> on the fourth amendment. ("Don't put anything in email that you wouldn't
> put on a billboard" is always the way I've heard it.)
>   

IANALB, I'd bet the supremes will eventually set the precedent to mirror 
the rules affecting messengers; trusted third-parties transporting 
information for a fee.

As far as encryption goes, that's a double edged sword:

   1. Universal use of encryption will dramatically reduce spam, since
      each message must be individually encrypted, and the overhead will
      make some spam unprofitable.
   2. It will tempt governments to reopen the "Key escrow" issue, or
      (worse by far) to demand backdoors in PGP/GPG/whatever.
   3. The server weenies won't be able to read the emails you send to
      your wife.
   4. Companies will be hiring a lot of security experts to supervise
      local key escrow for employee emails.

We'll have to wait and see how the legal issue shakes out.

Bill

-- 
E. William Horne
William Warren Consulting
Computer & Network Installations, Security, and Service
http://william-warren.com
781-784-7287