Something To Think About.....

[mikex]

SAN FRANCISCO Judge OK warrantless monitoring of web use. Privacy rules don't apply to Internet messages, court says.

[Bubba Bob]

The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package,

That doesn't even begin to make sence...

Once again California shows us they have no regard for the consitition. Im sure other states will hop aboard now.

I hope I rememder not to plan crimes over Yahoo, and to use someone else's computer to research my crimes

Edited July 10, 2007 by Bubba Bob

[JDoors]

... although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, "it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed." ...

OK then, no spying going on here ... move along ...

Although I understand the ever-growing difficulites of drawing distinctions between one type of information or behavior and another, it's about time personal data receive some kind of protection.

[jcl]

FWIW, my understanding is that the "non-content" bits of Internet communications have never been explicitly protected (by law or court) and it was generally assumed that they weren't implicitly protected. This is just the first time the theory has tested in court. [Edit: I should add that this particular opinion has been raising some eyebrows because of the mysterious "pen register analogue" it mentions.]

To be honest, while I find the law slightly annoying, I think you have to insane to believe that you have any privacy on the open Internet.

Edited July 11, 2007 by jcl

[JDoors]

... I think you have to insane to believe that you have any privacy on the open Internet.

There "should" be a difference between what malicious snoops (and unethical companies) do and what the government has a right to do to compile evidence to charge you with a crime. I think.

I specifically said "personal data" previously because many (or most) of us access the Internet via phone lines, where we have grown to have an expectation of privacy, though technically (and probably not fully understood) only voice "data" is protected. That limitation is just plain outdated. I think.

(Unsure because the whole issue has so many undefined, confusing and emerging issues involved.)

[jcl]

There "should" be a difference between what malicious snoops (and unethical companies) do and what the government has a right to do to compile evidence to charge you with a crime. I think.

True. But that's orthogonal to the issue of privacy. The gov't can invade your privacy all it wants if it doesn't care about prosecuting you.

I specifically said "personal data" previously because many (or most) of us access the Internet via phone lines, where we have grown to have an expectation of privacy, though technically (and probably not fully understood) only voice "data" is protected.

Remember that every cop show has 'taught' us that the police can trace your calls and get your phone records on a whim. That's all that happened in this case: the investigators got a court order to trace this guy's Internet activity. Same law, even.

Now, as I said above, this "pen register analogue" is a bit dubious. The opinion makes it sound like it -- whatever it was -- was installed on the suspect's machine, which presumably would require a warrant.

Edited July 11, 2007 by jcl