It's the same thing as above: the fourth amendment and the reasonable expectation of privacy, which the mail carries. You need a warrant, not a vacuum cleaner.

It is my understanding that courts have ruled email is not covered by the fourth amendment.

It is my understanding that courts have ruled email is not covered by the fourth amendment.

 

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/paul/court-rules-email-protected-fourth-amendment/

 

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the contents of the messages in an email inbox hosted on a provider’s servers are protected by the Fourth Amendment, even though the messages are accessible to an email provider. As the court puts it, “[t]he government may not compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of a subscriber’s emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.”

 

This is a very big deal; it marks the first time a federal court of appeals has extended the Fourth Amendment to email with such care and detail. Orin Kerr calls the opinion, at least on his initial read, “quite persuasive” and “likely . . . influential,” and I agree, but I’d go further: this is the opinion privacy activists and many legal scholars, myself included, have been waiting and calling for, for more than a decade. It may someday be seen as a watershed moment in the extension of our Constitutional rights to the Internet.

You are being naive. Do you really think that the state doesn't itercept mail regardless of  probable cause?

 

The UK locked up people suspected of being involved with the Irish Republican Army without trial. Think of Guatanamo in the US.

 

Governments often break the law. That doesn't mean citizens should condone it. When these things come to light, and the public reacts negatively, heads roll and even presidents can be forced to leave office. Remember Nixon.

 

By the way, Guantanamo was a case where they were kept away from the continental US precisely for the reason that they would have rights on American soil. The suspected terrorists were put there specifically to place them outside the reach of habeas corpus protections.

One ruling among many. Until the Supremes rule it is unsettled. And governments will always be able to get that warrant when they want it.

 

Not saying I agree that is right, but it is the way it is.

One ruling among many. Until the Supremes rule it is unsettled. And governments will always be able to get that warrant when they want it.

 

Not saying I agree that is right, but it is the way it is.

 

It's the applicable rule until something overrides it. Even the DOJ served a warrant in this case.

 

You may be right in the long run, though. The concept of personal privacy may be permanently on the wane.

 

Kind of ironic that we spent so much time and treasure in the cold war fighting communist surveillance states, only to win that war and then (accidently, through sheer negligence) toss away our own rights! 

 

One wonders what the founding fathers would think.

Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely ...

 

Also the iron law of oligarchy, and the law of unintended consequences. Also the dangers of a lack of Government transparency.

 

A history of some of this is enlightening, and maybe a bit sad. It's always so much easier to lose freedoms, than to gain them.

 

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/02-secrecy-negligence-congres-surveillance-bendix-quirk/ctibendixquirksecrecyv3.pdf

By the way, Guantanamo was a case where they were

kept away from the continental US precisely for the reason that they would have rights on American soil.

 

You think it would be acceptable for a US citizen to be kidnapped from the continental US into a country  doesn't have habeas corpus  protection?

You think it would be acceptable for a US citizen to be kidnapped from the continental US into a country  doesn't have habeas corpus  protection?

 

I think that's probably outside the scope of this discussion. :unsure: 

 

You might want to look up the UN, international law, and extraordinary rendition, though.

 

 

I think that's probably outside the scope of this discussion.

 

Or don't you have answer?

 

The reality is that states will do what they want - even such civilised states as the USA and the UK.

Or don't you have answer?

 

The reality is that states will do what they want - even such civilised states as the USA and the UK.

The US in particular was designed with a series of checks and balances intended to maintain a healthy democracy, of which the fourth amendment was only one.

 

Unfortunately, those checks and balances are enforced by mere mortals, subject to fear, greed, avarice and variations of same, which can over time undermine the rule of law. Or simply warp it badly in the presence of secrecy, concentrated power, and most especially the apathy of the governed.

 

We decide, at least theoretically the direction of our society by choosing our leaders carefully, holding them accountable, and participating as informed and interested citizens with a government that should be as transparent with us as reasonably possible.

 

Deciding that State's (governments) will do what they want, privacy is dead, we are all being watched and it's too late to do anything etc, places us on the same level of blame, probably more so, than the congress that's selectively abandoned its constitutional responsibility of oversight.

 

We're all still free citizens, so you have a perfect right to make your own choices and even sleep through this, but..... some of us still believe that an aware and active public continues to have the power to affect positive change.

 

Or maybe not!

 

History will decide.