email in your 'home'

[crschmidt-cTEUcjrfgDqB+jHODAdFcQ at public.gmane.org (Christopher Schmidt)]

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 02:59:25PM +0000, jay-R5TnC2l8y5lBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org wrote:
> This is really the same rules they have involving phone calls, and postal mail.  They do not need to notify you, they just need probable cause and a warrent.

Actually, this is different. The reason they need a warrant is because
of the fourth amendment, which prevents such 'search and seizure' (of
property or information) *without* a warrant.

This judge is saying "Because you gave it to your ISP, you gave up all notion
of privacy" -- in other words, "We don't need a warrant, you already 
wrote it on a billboard."

At least, that's what it sounds like to me.

-- Chris

> Further hosting your own mail server, with out strong encryption, will not help.  Your mail still touches plenty of other servers along the way to be "taped".  It will however protect the stored mail on your system.  But its probably stored elsewhere as well.
> 
> The best way to keep your information secure is elect politicians that care more about the constitution than about their own personal views and greed.
>   
> Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt-cTEUcjrfgDqB+jHODAdFcQ at public.gmane.org>
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:35:24 
> To: Matthew Gillen<me-5yx05kfkO/aqeI1yJSURBw at public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Blu<discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org>
> Subject: Re: email in your 'home'
> 
> 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. The user is generally accessing the Internet
> > > with a network account and computer storage owned by an ISP like Comcast
> > > or NetZero. All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or
> > > remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an
> > > ISP. When we send an e-mail or instant message from the comfort of our
> > > own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our computer
> > > to computers owned by a third party, the ISP, before being delivered to
> > > the intended recipient. 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.)
> 
> > It's also not a good precedent for cloud-computing, google apps,
> > amazon s3, etc.
> 
> This has been brought up repeatedly as a problem with using the cloud.
> However, it applies equally to non-cloud applications: Any 'slicehost'
> style setups, where you're paying for a chunk of someone else's server,
> would probably be similarly affected.
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Christopher Schmidt
> MetaCarta
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta