IRS Claims It Can Read Your Emails
I knew about this story when it came out, but I didn’t want to be just another political blog following the herd. So I cleverly waited in the wings, waiting to pounce with coverage of how Big Media ignored this story over the past couple of days.
Also . . . I was too busy to say anything when the story came out.
Let’s review the absolutely shocking basic story:
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has claimed that agents do not need warrants to read people’s emails, text messages and other private electronic communications, according to internal agency documents.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request, released the information on Wednesday.
In a 2009 handbook, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users “do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.” A 2010 presentation by the IRS Office of General Counsel reiterated the policy.
If the IRS says it doesn’t need a warrant to read your emails, that means the IRS is reading your emails without a warrant. They don’t claim powers like this without exercising them.
Now, those of you paying attention during the Bush administration might remember a small flap having do with warrantless wiretaps. I think there may have been an entry or two about it in the more partisan left-wing blogs, and a couple of the clearly left-leaning newspapers had a few small items about it. That’s pretty much how you recall the coverage, right? I think it was a “thing” for 2-3 days. It’s hard to remember, though, isn’t it?
If you’re rubbing your eyes in disbelief, that’s because I’m joking of course, and my deadpan (read: “not funny”) style of humor had you momentarily confused. Bush’s violation of FISA was a national story for literally years. The New York Times stories about it garnered a Pulitzer Prize. There were calls for impeachment. It was one of the biggest issues of Bush’s presidency.
On Thursday, Jay Carney was asked about all this. He was able to claim ignorance:
Q Two other quick topics. ACLU has released some documents that they obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request with the IRS, where IRS agents claim they can go through people’s emails and text messages without a warrant. Is the White House concerned about the IRA making that claim in terms of people’s privacy?
MR. CARNEY: I would have to take the question. I’m not aware of the story or the documents that were obtained, and I would certainly refer you to the IRS as a starting point.
Of course, Carney was able to profess ignorance because the national news media has been completely asleep at the wheel, in their typical shameless fashion. I searched national news publications for stories containing the terms IRS and email and warrant for the past year. The Los Angeles Times search revealed nothing. The New York Times revealed nothing. The Washington Post had nothing about the most recent IRS story — although to its credit, it did have a few stories and other pieces about government’s ability to do this generally.
A Google News search of the terms “IRS email warrant” reveals stories at publications like Fox News, or the Blaze, or Human Events, or the Washington Times. You get the idea. To be fair, a couple of lefty blogs have covered it as well — but there has been virtually nothing in Big Media. The closest thing I see to mainstream media news coverage is the single question asked of Carney, which he successfully brushed off as minor and non-newsworthy, and an NBC News blog post.
Is this one of those stories not being noticed by people in the left-leaning media bubble? On Friday we learned that massive publicity about the Kermit Gosnell case caused many lefty pundits to learn about that case for the first time. Folks like Dave Weigel and Conor Friedersdorf said that the Gosnell case was indeed a legitimate and compelling news story . . . they just had never heard about it before. [UPDATE: Actually, Weigel said he had read about it, but did not read the grand jury report — and thus see the obvious political angles — until the Twitter-bomb of coverage.]
One wonders if the story about the IRS reading your emails is similar.
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/13/2013 @ 2:43 pmif the media covered all the fascism it wouldn’t really be fascism it would just be food stamp acting like an imperious twat
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/13/2013 @ 3:11 pmSpot-on. It’s complete hypocrisy for media outlets and liberal blogs to ignore something like this – particularly when the scope of discretion seemingly claimed by the IRS is far broader than any discretion ever claimed/exercised by the Bush administration during the warrantless wiretapping mess. And I seriously doubt that the IRS interest in email monitoring is nearly as compelling as the Bush administration’s interest in warrantless wiretapping.
Creepy, creepy stuff. No reasonable expectation of privacy for email? Yikes.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/13/2013 @ 3:11 pmI am really disturbed by this. Not surprised, but disturbed. No expectation of privacy in email? That is absolutely absurd. The only thing I can hope is that it is another case of a government agency being 10 years behind the times. But wow.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 4/13/2013 @ 3:25 pmWell, at least Huffington Post and AmericaBlog on the left have picked up on the issue. New York Daily News has a piece.
As for the NYT, the LAT and WaPo, they’re doing a Sarah Kliff.
Bradley J. Fikes (ebf273) — 4/13/2013 @ 4:01 pmFor this and other reasons, I am my own ISP. I am beginning to think about using an encrypted VPN tunnel service.
Then again, with what gets posted to Facebook, the IRS may have an argument about some people’s expectation of privacy.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/13/2013 @ 4:17 pmWell said, Patterico and Leviticus.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/13/2013 @ 4:24 pmThis will be news to my attorneys.
Before anyone jumps to any ominous conclusions, I’m in business. I consult attorneys quite a bit in relation to my business. So I can stay out of jail or remain reasonably intact financially.
And up until now they were under the impression these communications were privileged.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/13/2013 @ 4:27 pmIf the IRS wants to play this game I’ll just start communicating with my accountant and tax attorneys via carrier pigeon.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/13/2013 @ 4:36 pmThe IRS has a long history of ignoring court decisions it does not care for, and acting lawlessly. Its not even related to this administration, its institutional behavior.
SPQR (768505) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:04 pmIf the IRS says it doesn’t need a warrant to read your emails, that means the IRS is reading your emails without a warrant.
How? Do they have a hacking division? And even then how do they sort through the massive volume?
nk (d4662f) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:06 pmNotice in their response they said they “didn’t TARGET citizens” that’s truthspeak for ” we didn’t look for citizens violating the law by reading their emails. we did however read the emails of citizens we SUSPECT are violating the law”.
so six of one and half a dozen of the other.
anyone who leaves their emails on their server is nutso anyway. download them and keep them on YOUR commputer. (yeah their are copies but I think it’s harder to get to. I dunno, ask a computer security guru Or get a proxy email address.)
Jcw46 (0af03c) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:15 pmThere’s happyfeet distracting by being cute and talking nonsense. Unless of course we talk about something they REALLY think is important. Then we better listen up or else.
but usually just cutesy baby talk like it’s some harmless little fuzzball but what it seems to do is distract, deny, thread jack and otherwise disrupt.
Accidental? Coincidental? I don’t think so.
Jcw46 (0af03c) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:19 pmWhy exactly don’t I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I address an email or text message to a single other person. And why can a hacker be tried and convicted of accessing my email without authorization if I don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Do they really believe they are exempt from any law they just don’t want to be bothered with? Do they really believe the 4th amendment doesn’t apply to them?
How long are we, the citizens of the United States, going to put up with this nonsense?
WarEagle82 (2b7355) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:19 pmnk,
According to this article regarding US vs Warshak, the IRS compels ISPs to turn over the emails without a warrant. And apparently they ISPs have been doing it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:23 pmI recall the IRS spokesweasel defending the IRS claims they had filed against the potential beneficiaries of the Lockerbie bombing.
The gub’mint, you see, has only a certain amount of time to lodge a tax claim. And since the Libyans were being stubborn, the IRS was in danger of not getting its pound of flesh. So they decided to file a claim on what the bereaved could theoretically get if there was ever a settlement.
And the spokesweasel waxed eloquent on how in a wonderful democracy such as ours the taxpayer had the right to go to tax court and dispute the stupid thing.
Isn’t that just heartwarming?
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:24 pmIn the FSU, the FSB actually forced ISPs to install eavesdropping hardware and software in their own systems, at their own expense so the FSB could access any electronic communications through the ISP. Nice to know the IRS is catching up with the FSB…
WarEagle82 (2b7355) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:25 pmAhh! Thank you, DRJ.
nk (d4662f) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:27 pmTurn off your spam filters and subscribe to every “email notification” offered as you surf the interwebs. If enough people did it?
nk (d4662f) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:31 pmHave I not acknowledged Putin as the more honest and straightforward communist?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/04/pb-130408-putin-merkel-da-02.photoblog900.jpg
Vladimir Putin, shortly before giving both thumbs up to the topless Ukrainian babe.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:36 pm[UPDATE: Actually, Weigel said he had read about it, but did not read the grand jury report — and thus see the obvious political angles — until the Twitter-bomb of coverage.]
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:39 pmNo, he’s not a communist, but an old style Russian nationalist, I’m surprised he hasn’t brought back the Third Section, the grand daddy of secret police
narciso (3fec35) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:44 pmorgans.
He never seems to have considered how the first Korean War came about;
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/04/when-historians-provide-bad-policy-ideas
narciso (3fec35) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:47 pmHe’s more of an honest communist than the Mayor Daley Cook County pol we have infesting the WH. Who might as well be.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:53 pmAnyone who expected privacy in electronic communications just wasn’t paying attention.
GnuPG. Read the instructions. Install it correctly. Generate your keys correctly. Keep track of them. If you do not understand the instructions, consult a local teenage trouble-maker. Do not let eir generate your keys.
I’ve treated electronic communication (every instance of every type) as if they were postcards since the 1960s.
htom (412a17) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:56 pmYes, htom, but there are certain emails I might not have sent back in 1997 if I would have known the feds would determine in 2013 I had no expectation of privacy.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/13/2013 @ 6:07 pmGreetings:
Another success story for President Barack (the buck stops there) Obama’s administration.
11B40 (b7b34c) — 4/13/2013 @ 6:10 pmthe EPA hoochie was so concerned about privacy she made up a whole different identity
and when Petraeus was trying to get his slut on he only sended email to himself
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/13/2013 @ 6:14 pmI enjoyed reading Warshak. Thanks again, DRJ. The Fourth Amendment analysis is pretty staid stuff, but the ” ‘open file’ response to discovery” issue is fun for anybody who is not familiar with it. Basically, you send your opponent as many pages of requested written discovery as you can afford to xerox. Maybe the takeout menus from the local restaurants you are ordering from during the case will lead to relevant and material evidence or maybe not. Give them the benefit of the doubt and let your opponent decide. 😉 (Exaggerating a little, here, but it’s a point I’ve made before about discovery being a two-edged sword.)
nk (d4662f) — 4/13/2013 @ 6:35 pmFun fact, from Warshak, Jeff Skilling of Enron received several million (sic) pages from the government in response to his Brady request. Snicker.
nk (d4662f) — 4/13/2013 @ 6:39 pmHmmm,
I’ve long been under the impression that emails are not “really” private. Perhaps I got that impression when I had a (dot)edu email and was told that the institution considered the email accounts “theirs” and not “ours”.
Then again I could be wrong.
Once upon a time the institutional lawyers told docs not to communicate with pts via email. my own doc wouldn’t communicate with me via email even though I included in the email that I wanted him to. but then people started saying how docs communicating with their patients by email would be great to decrease cost and improve the business aspects of medicine….
Sometimes life seems to be one big tug-of-war between company lawyers, insurance lawyers, and government lawyers, with all of the rest of us stuck in the middle.
Once upon a time we paid for our email service as part of our telephone/internet connection. In one way I guess we still do, but the company also said they were going to let Google gmail run it because they were so good at it…of course we went from a private email with no ads to the typical gmail get scanned and have ads come up
The only redeeming feature of this arrangement is that I find it funny when I get a link to “SPAM” recipes when I look to see if something important was trapped there.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/13/2013 @ 6:43 pmWhat will happen though, is exactly what happened when the SWIFT and other surveilance techniques, were revealed, the suspects dropped out of the network, Al Kuwaiti’s call to Abbotabad were the exception,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/13/2013 @ 6:43 pmAnd I seriously doubt that the IRS interest in email monitoring is nearly as compelling as the Bush administration’s interest in warrantless wiretapping.
Creepy, creepy stuff. No reasonable expectation of privacy for email? Yikes.
Moreover, and ironically, the Obama administration — which over the past 12 months has ramped up the IRS’s budget by over $500 million — is notorious for having several staffers who are in arrears to the IRS and could be among those whose personal correspondence would make for ideal targets. And, of course, Obama’s former Secretary of the Treasury — who got through the vetting process in spite of his being known as a tax cheat — had his own personal run-in with the IRS.
So a graspy, greedy IRS tampering with people’s emails represents a wonderful salute to our beautiful, bountiful, humane and generous government in 2013 America.
Let’s raise a toast to and honor the upcoming April 15th!
Mark (3764db) — 4/13/2013 @ 7:10 pmi bought some templeton rye for to celebrate the occasion I’m a have to find that nadas song now
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/13/2013 @ 7:12 pmmy aunt s who loves the adult beverages told me templeton rye is how you make old school manhattans
she is wise in such lore
here’s that song about the templeton rye
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/13/2013 @ 7:19 pmIn regard to gun laws i heard the argument that the old USSR and other tyrannies like to find ways of making everybody guilty of something, not necessarily to prosecute but to hold the threat of it over your head in order to manipulate.
maybe that’s why so many people have been on the cabinet that have murky histories. Like Petreaus and his affair, promote people into high positions who you can essentially blackmail into doing your bidding.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/13/2013 @ 7:30 pmIf you want villainy done, you need to hire villains, MD.
Or you can go Shakespearian:
LORD POLONIUS
My lord, I will use them according to their desert.
HAMLET
nk (d4662f) — 4/13/2013 @ 7:59 pmGod’s bodykins, man, much better: use every man
after his desert, and who should ‘scape whipping?
Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.
My guess is that the supposedly disbanded Special Collections Unit has some people they’ve been watching/reading.
I screwed up and legitimately owed the IRS mid six figures and got in the sights of the SCU. My attorney told me to get every liquid asset liquidated and put my amount owed under $50K and get under their threshold and into the oversight of a local office generated payment plan.
The SCU had sent my attorney a letter asking me names and addresses of friends and family, cash on hand, vehicles owned with VIN numbers, etc.
I asked where my settlement for 10 cents on the dollar was like the radio ads for the other guys advertised… she said something like “one for you and two for me accounting stopped working in kindergarden” (I’ve known her since kindergarden) and then I think she spent some of my fee on a nice dinner and then watched some TV…
I’ll bet those guys read every word anyone they think is laundering money writes… email, text… they probably have nets for the pigeons too
SteveG (8236d5) — 4/13/2013 @ 10:33 pmMaybe someone should ask Obama for a list of communications for which Americans can reasonably expect privacy.
This is the administration defending non-warranted GPS trackers on cars.
MayBee (d48d90) — 4/14/2013 @ 1:25 amAnd this is the administration fighting for electronic medical records.
Maybe someone should ask Obama for a list of communications for which Americans can reasonably expect privacy.
Silly. He is a hero of liberty. Just ask him. Transparent too.
JD (b63a52) — 4/14/2013 @ 6:47 amOne recalls when the FBI tried to listen in on some of the folks mentioned here;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/boola_boola_save_your_moolah.html
narciso (3fec35) — 4/14/2013 @ 7:05 amExcept for the relatively new (and outlier) Warshak decision — which technically only covers the 6th circuit — government has not needed a warrant to access some emails. Administrative subpoenas or other court orders were enough. Under the stored communications act. Not the 4th amendment. Warshak is the first decision to hold that the 4th amendment applies to emails stored on someone else’s server.
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 7:37 am“Is this one of those stories not being noticed by people in the left-leaning media bubble?”
The law which delineates government access to email is from 1986.
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 7:39 amNot exactly, care for a copy of the home game;
The ACLU notes that the ECPA only requires a warrant on emails that have been on an email provider’s servers for 180 days or less, but anything beyond that time frame and any message that has been opened does not require a warrant.
narciso (3fec35) — 4/14/2013 @ 7:52 amI just followed your link. You cut out the next paragraph in the “absolutely shocking story” that makes it a lot less shocking.
“Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, government officials only need a subpoena, issued without a judge’s approval, to read emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old.”
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 7:55 am“Dave” is a cute sophist.
JD (f5b0a4) — 4/14/2013 @ 8:05 amHe lets the Squirrels!! out to play.
narciso (3fec35) — 4/14/2013 @ 8:07 amMr. instapundit says you can fight invasive species by eating them
so that’s one idea
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/14/2013 @ 8:33 amJay Carney is ALWAYS able to claim ignorance.
And, as is the case with most of this crew, it’s ignorance blended with arrogance; ie. he’s a dick.
Icy (c427d7) — 4/14/2013 @ 9:16 amThere’s happyfeet distracting by being cute and talking nonsense. Unless of course we talk about something they REALLY think is important. Then we better listen up or else.
but usually just cutesy baby talk like it’s some harmless little fuzzball but what it seems to do is distract, deny, thread jack and otherwise disrupt.
Accidental? Coincidental? I don’t think so.
Comment by Jcw46 (0af03c) — 4/13/2013 @ 5:19 pm
— You should be taxed heavily for that waste of bandwidth.
Icy (c427d7) — 4/14/2013 @ 9:30 amJay Carney knows three IRS agents named Hilary Rosen, and none of them told him about this!
Icy (c427d7) — 4/14/2013 @ 9:32 amOh, for the want of some sort of legislative body that could pass a — what do they call it? — oh yeah, pass an ordinance that would make it the law of the land that ANY government agency wishing to read someone’s electronic communications would first have to obtain a warrant.
If only such a legislative body existed . . .
Icy (c427d7) — 4/14/2013 @ 9:38 amInteresting how it’s been interpreted over the years,
Several court cases have raised the question of whether e-mail messages are protected under the stricter provisions of Title I while they were in transient storage en route to their final destination. In United States v. Councilman, a U.S. district court and a three-judge appeals panel ruled they were not, but in 2005, the full United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed this opinion. Privacy advocates were relieved; they had argued in Amicus curiae briefs that if the ECPA did not protect e-mail in temporary storage, its added protections were meaningless as virtually all electronic mail is stored temporarily in transit at least once and that Congress would have known this in 1986 when the law was passed. (see, e.g., RFC 822). The case was eventually dismissed on grounds unrelated to ECPA issues[citation needed].
narciso (3fec35) — 4/14/2013 @ 9:54 amCouncilmen, btw is the silly decision, that all the anti Gitmo amici have in common, unexpectedly, it doesn’t deal with the matter at hand,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/14/2013 @ 9:57 amCan we get the IRS to read the emails of the Obama Administration regarding what really happened in terms of their handling of the Benghazi consulate attack ?!
Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/14/2013 @ 10:03 am“Can we get the IRS to read the emails of the Obama Administration regarding what really happened in terms of their handling of the Benghazi consulate attack ?!”
Peak derp.
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 10:09 amOooooh,….”peak derp.”
Oofa-loofa !
Sounds like Mork from Ork is using “Dave” as his Earth-name.
Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/14/2013 @ 10:13 am“expectation of privacy”
Scalia argues, correctly, that “expectation of privacy” does not limit 4th Amendment rights to privacy, but only expands them. Recent cases regarding intrusion onto porches and driveways show that there are places with little to no privacy that are still covered by the 4th Amendment.
See for example US v Antoine Jones where the Court specifically overrode a 9th Circuit decision based on “no expectation of privacy”.
Now, are emails “papers” as per the 4th Amendment? If so, none of this expectation argument applies.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/14/2013 @ 10:31 amum, Jones, was not about the 9th Circuit case but that case (United States v. Pineda-Moreno) was overturned by it nonetheless.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/14/2013 @ 10:33 amSeems to be a whole other authority, entirely;
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/111/3/Kerr.pdf
narciso (3fec35) — 4/14/2013 @ 10:46 amI imagine they are relying on the Patriot Act, which superceded both the ECPA and the SCA, but they don’t want to say that.
narciso (3fec35) — 4/14/2013 @ 11:00 amThe 4th Amendment reads “persons, houses, papers, and effects”; the common definition of “effects” is ‘belongings; property’. If your car is your property, then why doesn’t your email belong to you? “Papers” should, of course, be interpreted to include anything you have created which exists in written form — regardless of medium — and has not been intentionally released onto the commercial market. Whether they’re considered “papers” or “effects” your electronic communications still belong to you.
‘Internet users “do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.”’
The Icy who will now be audited because he wrote this (c427d7) — 4/14/2013 @ 11:16 am— The Supreme Court of the Internal Revenue Service hath spoken.
And they’re correct.
With people like THEM around, we shouldn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
BETTER LIVING THROUGH STATISM!!!
“If your car is your property, then why doesn’t your email belong to you? “Papers” should, of course, be interpreted to include anything you have created which exists in written form — regardless of medium — and has not been intentionally released onto the commercial market. Whether they’re considered “papers” or “effects” your electronic communications still belong to you.”
Icy – I’m not sure you want to go there because if you remember we had many commenters on this website absolutely insisting that electronic information or data was not property and therefor should be free, free, free for the world to peruse.
It is kind of tough for these “information needs to be free” advocates to argue both ways.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 11:40 am“If your car is your property, then why doesn’t your email belong to you”
Actually cops can search cars without warrants too.
But this case is about emails that are not on your property, but on a third party server. The doctrine is that stuff that is with or exposed to a third party is not stuff that you have an expectation of privacy in.
“I imagine they are relying on the Patriot Act, which superceded both the ECPA and the SCA, but they don’t want to say that.”
The little bit that has been reported here seems in line with 4th amendment doctrine and the plain language of the SCA. No need for the patriot act.
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 12:56 pmWhy do we even have enough IRS agents lying around to even be worried they might look at our email?
My ode to sequestration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=TSyhxB-jU6s&feature=endscreen
We need fewer air traffic controllers. Or, whatever.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/14/2013 @ 1:01 pmIf people didn’t think Aaron Schwartz deserved to be prosecuted for downloading information that didn’t belong to him, why are they upset about the government accessing emails?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 1:23 pmWhat is the connection you’re trying to make? Nobody thinks JSTOR should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the things they publish. There are people who think that the law should change so that a warrant should be required to access emails, even when on a third party server.
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 1:29 pm“What is the connection you’re trying to make?”
dave – Why not muddle on it a bit, you might be able to suss it out.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 1:36 pmThe problem with GnuPG is that releasing one key releases every message encrypted to that key. New key pair for each group of messages.
So you can end up with a lot of key pairs.
But you can at least attempt to control them.
htom (412a17) — 4/14/2013 @ 1:40 pmIt’s a little hard because if you’re wrong, it will be hard for me to figure out how, since I’ll be eliminating possibilities that are wrong. Up above you said something about information being free — I guess referring to Schwarz case. But that case wasn’t about privacy. That was about something that was published.
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 1:46 pmdave – If information doesn’t belong to anyone, how can there be any expectations of privacy?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 2:16 pmBecause privacy isn’t about “belong” in the sense that we talk about publications (which, by definition, aren’t private) “belong” to people. It looks like you’re mixing up two different concepts (privacy and ownership) just because you use the same term “information” in both concepts.
You understand, for example, how nobody thinks the government ought to need a warrant to read published journal articles, but some people think the government ought to need a warrant to read the contents of someone’s gmail account during an investigation.
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 2:29 pmWhoa. Slow down shipmate you’re riding too fast.
I probably led the charge on the whole Aaron Swartz thing. And as I said at the time, I didn’t even like the guy. I didn’t find him at all sympathetic. He is exactly the type who would royally piss me off.
Still, I had to admit I found the CFAA excessive.
I never thought I’d live to see the day when I’d read this.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-most-ridiculous-law-of-2013-so-far-it-is-now-a-crime-to-unlock-your-smartphone/272552/
I think Aaron Swartz was kind of a prick. He offed himself; how selfish is that? What’s with the “ute” of today that they think civil disobedience shouldn’t cost them anything?
If that’s the aim, I don’t really know. Maybe the whole “occupy” thing is just about getting laid.
Still, I could do without the whole Computer Fraud and Abuse Act regardless of how many selfish entitled children of privilege martyr themselves over nothing.
JSTOR, MIT, and indeed the state of Taxachusetts have all the tools to deal with such idiots.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/14/2013 @ 2:35 pm“It looks like you’re mixing up two different concepts (privacy and ownership) just because you use the same term “information” in both concepts.”
dave – Are you trying to tell me that the concepts of property rights and privacy are unrelated?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 2:42 pmUnlocking is DMCA, not CFAA.
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 2:43 pm“dave – Are you trying to tell me that the concepts of property rights and privacy are unrelated?”
I’m trying to tell you that you’re mixing up two things, specially in the realm of information. Did my example about warrants and journal articles and gmail accounts not clear up the difference for you?
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 2:45 pm“Whoa. Slow down shipmate you’re riding too fast.”
Steve57 – Absolutely not. Just recalling the conversation. It has nothing to do with whether anybody liked Schwartz or not, which is an absolute red herring. It also ties in to the conversations about copyrights.
Either people have property rights or they don’t and with respect to digital information it seems there is a big movement to make that information free, no matter who has an interest in it. People explicitly claimed digital information was not property as well. Review the thread and refresh your memory.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 2:48 pmThe Journals in question specifically solicited people to access them. They wanted to be read by as many people as possible. Private emails, not so much.
NJRob (853bb3) — 4/14/2013 @ 2:49 pm“I’m trying to tell you that you’re mixing up two things, specially in the realm of information. Did my example about warrants and journal articles and gmail accounts not clear up the difference for you?”
dave – No it did not. Now answer the question I asked in #74.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 2:51 pm“dave – No it did not. Now answer the question I asked in #74.”
The answer is no.
dave (aee97b) — 4/14/2013 @ 2:53 pmdaley, my memory is fresh. I think the state, the university, and JSTOR had plenty of tools to defend their property rights without the CFAA.
Let me refresh your memory. I never objected to the fact Swartz was prosecuted. It was the piling on.
I think my commitment to property rights is demonstrated by the fact that, at some point, I’m of the opinion you should be able to unlock your own cell phone.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/14/2013 @ 3:06 pm‘Scuse me. I can’t keep one federal illegality separate from another these days.
How silly of me.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/14/2013 @ 3:09 pmWhat “Dave” is trying to say is that he believes that the government has no right to impede upon the ‘privacy’ of a sixteen year old girl’s third-trimester abortion, but that if that same sixteen year old girl wants to keep her emails private, then she should go jump in a lake, because the right to privacy extends to abortion—not emails !
By the way, Dave also said, “I am Mork from Ork, and I will drink your milkshake !”
Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/14/2013 @ 3:18 pm“Dave”s schtick never grows old.
JD (b63a52) — 4/14/2013 @ 3:18 pm“Let me refresh your memory. I never objected to the fact Swartz was prosecuted. It was the piling on.”
Steve57 – Since I never claimed you did, I have no idea what you are complaining about.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 3:19 pm“I think the state, the university, and JSTOR had plenty of tools to defend their property rights without the CFAA.”
Steve57 – The above statement would put you in the camp of acknowledging that MIT had a property interest in the JSTORR database. Heck, they were taking in a few million bucks a year from that property right. Schwartz interfered with that property right by downloading the database.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 3:24 pmIs there a law against using your locked smartphone as a hopscotch marker?
nk (d4662f) — 4/14/2013 @ 3:25 pmnk – They make good targets for shooting as well.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 3:26 pmMy mistake, perhaps.
But, I didn’t bring up the fact that I wouldn’t have liked the Aaron Swartz as a red herring.
It was central to my point.
If I’m not willing to defend a principle because it might apply to someone I despise, it’s not really a principle.
In any case I did see it as implied that if I objected to the way the Aaron Swartz case was handled I couldn’t reasonably object to the feds making my private information public.
Sorry.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/14/2013 @ 3:38 pm“But, I didn’t bring up the fact that I wouldn’t have liked the Aaron Swartz as a red herring.
It was central to my point.”
Steve57 – I had no idea of the purpose of your comments since we are in agreement that MIT had property rights in the database that Schwartz hacked. My point was that people on that thread were arguing there were no property rights to electronic information. If so, how can there be property rights to emails, e.g. any expectations to privacy.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 4:39 pmNot to put too fine a point on it, but I think JSTOR had the property rights to the database.
MIT had the property rights to the utility cabinet and WiFi.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/14/2013 @ 4:57 pmOr rather internet access.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/14/2013 @ 4:59 pm“Not to put too fine a point on it”
Steve57 – But you will anyway, because that’s the way you roll.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2013 @ 10:55 pmMaybe. But when I do roll I’ve probably got moose antlers strapped to my wing struts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=T-CRoWHcF04&feature=endscreen
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/15/2013 @ 3:01 am