{"id":165,"date":"2006-12-04T20:39:19","date_gmt":"2006-12-05T01:39:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blacknell.net\/dynamic\/2006\/12\/04\/everyone-should-have-a-tinfoil-hat\/"},"modified":"2006-12-04T20:40:46","modified_gmt":"2006-12-05T01:40:46","slug":"everyone-should-have-a-tinfoil-hat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blacknell.net\/dynamic\/2006\/12\/04\/everyone-should-have-a-tinfoil-hat\/","title":{"rendered":"Everyone should have a tinfoil hat"},"content":{"rendered":"

You know the people we used to make fun of? The ones who insisted on PGP encryption for “See you at the bar around 8:30” emails? If we’re smart, we’ll be getting more like them, sooner than later. The LA Times helps us understand why<\/a>:<\/p>\n

IN THE LATEST illustration of the Bush administration’s disregard for your privacy, the Justice Department is trying to convince a panel of federal judges that the FBI should be free to read your e-mail without obtaining a warrant.<\/p>\n

It’s not all your e-mail \u00e2\u20ac\u201d only messages left on a Web-based system such as Hotmail or on your Internet service provider’s computers. A 1986 law forbids the interception and disclosure of e-mail and other online transmissions without a warrant. But there is an exception. If the messages are more than 180 days old, they can be obtained merely with a subpoena or a court order, which investigators can obtain more easily than a warrant.<\/p>\n

Now the Justice Department is arguing, in a case before an appeals court in Ohio, that even new messages can be obtained without a warrant if their intended recipient has already read them. The Justice Department views an opened e-mail left on a service provider’s computer as more like a postcard left on a table than a sealed letter in a drawer. Which is to say, its owner has no reasonable expectation of privacy.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To be fair, law enforcement’s disregard for privacy isn’t unique to the present administration. But they’ve certainly taken it farther than any administration so far. And don’t count on Congress, Democrat-controlled or not, to roll it back. There are some folks dedicated to the good fight up there (Sen. Leahy, for the most part), but most politicians couldn’t give a damn about your privacy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

You know the people we used to make fun of? The ones who insisted on PGP encryption for “See you at the bar around 8:30” emails? If we’re smart, we’ll be getting more like them, sooner than later. The LA Times helps us understand why: IN THE LATEST illustration of the Bush administration’s disregard for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[4,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-law","category-policy"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t