Google Backs Yahoo In Privacy Fight With DoJ 173
PatPending sends in CNET coverage of Yahoo's new allies in its fight with the DoJ to protect the privacy of its customers' email stored in the cloud. Google, the EFF, the CDT, and others have filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the DoJ should be required to obtain a search warrant signed by a judge in order to compel Yahoo to turn over users' email messages. "Does email stored in the cloud have the same level of protection as the same information stored by a person at home? No, according to the Obama administration's Assistant US Attorney Pegeen Rhyne, who wrote in a government motion filed last month, 'Previously opened e-mail is not in "electronic storage." This court should therefore require Yahoo to comply with the order and produce the specified communications in the targeted accounts.' (The Justice Department's position is that what's known as a 2703(d) order — not as privacy-protective as the rules for search warrants — should let police read email.)" Update: 04/16 23:26 GMT by KD : he government backed off: "Saying the contested e-mail 'would not be helpful to the government’s investigation,' the authorities withdrew demands for e-mail in a pending and sealed criminal case." So no court ruling and no precedent.
Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Is in your imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy is in your imagination.
All concepts are. The question is deeper that that, and goes to whether or not we're imagining the same things.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
your sig makes me hate you as a person.
Re: (Score:2)
Then either you do not understand the sig (which speaks to conscription) or you are yet another poltroon who would conscript the service of other free men and women to provide for your liberty. I find the latter notion extremely abhorrent. Every man and woman in my family, since time out of mind, has always served whether called for or not. We do not call for others to defend our, or your, liberty. That is the decision of each
Re: (Score:2)
I spent four years in the Air force, disliked it immensely, but nevertheless consider it to have been a valuable use of my time. In terms of conscription, I believe this nation could benefit from mandatory conscription for a number of years along the lines of what, say, Israel or Switzerland does.
Even still, I honestly didn't get that out of the quote. I got a blanket statement of Life > Freedom in terms of values and priorities, something I strongly disagree with. If you were enslaved, would you kill
Re: (Score:2)
The worst thing about this comment is that it's not even all that much of a caricature.
4th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... [wikipedia.org]
But of course this is the internet, so it's different.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:4th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm quite certain (as are you I believe) that cloud storage of my E-mail which is obviously restricted to me via a password system would constitute my effects, just as much as a bank safety deposit box would.
other ramifications??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:4th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
My email and safe deposit box are held by third parties, each of which has the ability to look inside.
I would hope that the government needs a warrant two inspect the contents of my safe deposit box, and more importantly, that my bank would not allow them access without a warrant.
The same goes for my email.
Re: (Score:2)
each of which has the ability to look inside.
Um, no? Your safe deposit box should require TWO keys to open.
Re: (Score:2)
each of which has the ability to look inside.
Um, no? Your safe deposit box should require TWO keys to open.
While true, there are (expensive) ways for the bank to open the box if you lose both keys. With a warrant, I see no reason why they wouldn't use this method.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Google Find Its Balls? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Did Google Find Its Balls? (Score:4, Insightful)
You hear it all the time... "I am willing to take more time going through airport security, since it will make the skies safer." This, along with many other one-liners roll our forefathers over.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I always wondered why the cockpit was not just locked and all. Was it because most hijackings before were not suicide missions and procedure was to try and save the passengers by negotiation or something? Are there any authoritative sources saying what you are saying that I can reference?
Along the same lines a friend of mine would point out that the Empire State building stood up to a collision from a WW2 bomber plane and only lost three floors to fire. If we would just build are t
Re: (Score:2)
the Empire State building stood up to a collision from a WW2 bomber plane and only lost three floors to fire
What took down the towers was the fuel-fed fire weakening the structural beams, not the impact. The B-25 carries a maximum of 670 gallons of fuel, while a 767ER carries 23,980 gallons, more than 35 times as much. Further, in both cases it was a flight from Boston to New York City, which was a much larger percentage of the B-25's flight range than a 767's. So, there was around two orders of magnitude more fuel feeding the fires at each WTC tower than there was feeding the Empire State Building fire, and t
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered why the cockpit was not just locked and all. Was it because most hijackings before were not suicide missions and procedure was to try and save the passengers by negotiation or something?
Pretty much. Previous hijackings basically consisted of "Take me to Some Island Country." The September 11, 2001, hijackings were assumed to be more of the same, in which case the safest course of action is to just go along with the hijackers and land wherever they tell you to. Since then (and probably into the future), people have instead assumed that they're going to be killed in the hijacking, so they will do whatever they can to try to limit the damage and casualties, even if they still end up being kil
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered why the cockpit was not just locked and all.
Just last year a passenger had to land a plane with ATC guidance after the pilot died. Not much you can do if the cockpit door is locked in that situation.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/13/florida.plane.emergency/index.html [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Completely different situations. It was a private flight, where security measures are completely different. In commercial airflight there should always be a co-pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
But....Think of the Children!
Re: (Score:2)
It's because you missed a word they said: "seem", as in "I am willing to take more time going through airport security, since it will make the skies seem safer."
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing was required to prevent another 9/11 style attack...
And the whole thing would likely have been prevented if our security agencies would have actually worked together and shared information instead of each hoarding a piece of the puzzle.
PBS had an interesting show [pbs.org] on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anything they've implemented since 9/11, or anything they've proposed since 9/11, made it impossible for somebody to stick some C4 and a BIC lighter up their ass?
No...? So what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
Having rules that are enforced like "no bombs on planes (REALLY)" is not usurping your civil rights.
I don't think its the rules that bother people, its the enforcement. I doubt you'd find many people who take issues with a "no bombs" policy, the real problem is that we're willing to give up basically all of our rights to enforce it. Worse, we give up all our rights for pretty much negligible results.
The problem is that at some point the cure becomes worse than the disease. Some argue (and I agree) that t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think its the rules that bother people, its the enforcement.
What good are rules without enforcement?
I doubt you'd find many people who take issues with a "no bombs" policy, the real problem is that we're willing to give up basically all of our rights to enforce it.
ALL of our rights? Is the freedom of the press or freedom of religion not allowed on planes? How about the right to remain silent? People check you and your luggage to confirm that you don't have any weapons. This is not a suspension of ALL of your rights.
"Safety at any cost" is a pretty heinous ideology,
ANY cost? No. But, of course, there will be some cost. Do you not put new brake pads on your car? That's at a cost, is it not?
I feel that "Absolute freedom, regardless of the risk to me or others" is equally
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware my 20oz bottle of mountain dew was a weapon. "OMG, look out, he's got high fructose corn syrup and caffeine!"
There is problem with Mt. Dew. There's no problem with the bottle it's in. The problem is that someone might put something else into an empty Mt. Dew bottle that may explode when it comes into contact with a flame or electrical charge.
Fortunately nobody in this thread was advocating for that. I believe I was advocating for common sense. Do you really think that pulling Grannie out of the security line and making her take off her shoes advances the security of our air transportation network? Do you really think that forcing people through full body scanners that can't scan body cavities (i.e: there's still a way for someone who is determined to smuggle something bad on board) advances the security of our air transportation network? It's all security theater. Nothing more, nothing else.
I agree that common sense needs to be employed, but how do you know Grannie is not packing C4? The second you say that no one over 65 needs to be search is the second before terrorists start recruiting 66 yr olds.
Of course it's all theater. Do you really think that little
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, but it will buy me enough time to arm myself if I'm home. If I'm not then I don't really care if he makes off with my insured property.
OK, but neither helps you on a plane. And if you don't care about your stuff, then why lock your door?
Relax. I was agreeing with you. Airport security is theatrics. But it's theatrics with a purpose.
Blah blah blah blah. You've eaten up the FUD hook, line and sinker. Terrorists make one attempt -- that fails miserably I might add -- and you jump to the head of the line to surrender your rights.
FUD? You got two out of three, but umm, where does "Doubt" come in?
As for the Fear part, British Intelligence got wind of terrorists using explosive liquids in bottles, much like your Mt. Dew bottle, to blow up a plane. It failed miserably because they busted the ring up days before the attempt. Investiga
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Did Google Find Its Balls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The fools who said that in the first place were thinking of lines for metal detectors. If after the DB Cooper incident the government had gone straight to baggage inspections, crazy liquids policies, random pat-down searches, no-fly lists, and the like, people would have freaked. Now that the frog is well and truly
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, there are actually people that would be willing to give up the privacy of their email if it makes the world safer.
You hear it all the time... "I am willing to take more time going through airport security, since it will make the skies safer." This, along with many other one-liners roll our forefathers over.
Um, you could charter a plane and fly with no searches. You could drive or take a bus, boat or train to your destination. See, when you purchase an airline ticket, you are agreeing to be searched and stuffed into a pressurized tube and launched to over 10,000 feet at over 600 mph. This is why the Fourth does not apply. Well, that and the fact that you are not guaranteed all of your rights, all of the time. I could bring up the "fire in a crowded theater" example, but instead I will bring up the "why ca
Re: (Score:2)
Except they're not. Folks are being randomly picked for 'extra attention' and others are sailing through without a problem.
Free energy (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, there are actually people that would be willing to give up the privacy of their email if it makes the world safer.
Put a magnet in Ben Franklin's pocket and place a coil by the casket, and his spinning in his grave would power a small town!
Re:Did Google Find Its Balls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well - why DID you think there were so many earthquakes? Our forefathers are having fits rolling over in their graves!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, I hope you put on your asbestos underwear before leaving the house this morning...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:constitutional law professor (Score:5, Interesting)
That reversal is the reason I dislike Obama.
I'm glad people still remember that!
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I still have an image of that check lying around somewhere. I was very proud of it.
I'd be more interested to see a scan of the scathing letter.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there still are candidates in politics who stick to their principles.
I'd vote for them and donate to them.
Quite honestly the lobby and advocacy groups are great for pushing issues, but if you don't have good people in government to listen to them, their efforts are wasted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeap, "... more of the same, and much MUCH worse!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
/tinfoil hat
One might wonder why all presidents appear to quickly move to the exact same positions regardless of their prior beliefs. /tinfoil hat off
One might wonder.... hehehehe
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyer in question, Pegeen Rhyne, holds himself out as being appointed as an AUSA back in 2001, which would make him a Bush appointee. It's also exceedingly unlikely that this position got put before the Attorney General, let alone the President.
Re: (Score:2)
A pity Sergey Brin was born in Russia. If this trend continues, I'd vote for him next time round.
Re:constitutional law professor (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, modded troll already. The truth hurts, doesn't it Democrats? Your guy is no better than the one that came before him with regards to our civil liberties.
I doubt there's more than a handful of politicians in DC who would do a "good" job protecting our rights civil liberties. I don't think this DoJ issue is a Republican vs Democrat issue. It's definitely an us (citizens) against them (the government) issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The people who wrote the constitution understood that the government is the enemy. That is why they put so many restrictions on government. Unfortunately, all our technological advances in the past ~150 years has done an end run around the constitution.
"Our forefathers wouldn't have approved of reading private mail stored in the cloud!"
"Your forefathers couldn't DREAM of the cloud, so the constitution doesn't apply!"
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The people who wrote the constitution understood that the government is the enemy. That is why they put so many restrictions on government. Unfortunately, all our technological advances in the past ~150 years has done an end run around the constitution.
"Our forefathers wouldn't have approved of reading private mail stored in the cloud!"
"Your forefathers couldn't DREAM of the cloud, so the constitution doesn't apply!"
I'd like to think that we have some honest people still in washington. What we need is another Frank Church, And a strengthening of fisa.
Re: (Score:2)
I find Google interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Legally, Google probably couldn't guarantee privacy if it wanted to.
I think the real irony is that there are many people out there who claim to value privacy but openly embrace social and national defense programs that gives our government direct access to personal information and enables them to control our lives more thoroughly.
nah (Score:2)
Hmmm I wonder how they would react if the Government offered to pay for the same information they are currently requesting be provided free?
The US government paying google with US taxpayer dollars to get information from google's international (read: not necessarily US taxpayer) end users? I don't see that going over well.
Re: (Score:2)
Only we can do that to our pledges
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. If these emails can be accessed at a later date they're obviously being stored somewhere. Now I lose my right to privacy because I've opened an email?
What exactly is the problem with just getting a search warrant?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that due process frequently restricts the police to acting justly instead of going on fishing expeditions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with getting warrants is that they take time to get. They have to hand information over to a Judge to look at so they can determine if there is enough probable cause for a search warrant, and if they Judge denies it, no warrant, aka no searching.
If the Judge DOES issue the warrant, they have to notify you at some point about the search, whether it be before they search, while they search, or after they have searched.
If they can "legally" make it so that they don't need a warrant to acquire cert
Re: (Score:2)
one problem with email from home, most residential providers restrict the email port.
Another thing is: if the issue is alerting the suspect, then you use a wiretapping warrant.
If the problem is no due cause? then you are shit out of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them will open it if you ask them.
If not, a paid-for domain with email is dirt cheap these days - three bucks a month should cover it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with getting warrants is that they take time to get.
My brother-in-law is a homicide detective. According to him, he can get a warrant in under 30 minutes, if it's important.
We'll be presented with all manner of 24-esque ticking-time-bomb-in-the-school-basement scenarios to illustrate why and when this warrant-less search power would be used. In reality, it will be used to dredge up dirt on status-quo-threatening politicians and political activists that will then be mysteriously leaked to the pre
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with getting warrants is that they take time to get.
If you're saying that the problem is that evidence may be destroyed before law enforcement can seize it, there's a very simple solution to that. Police can conduct the search immediately, then get the warrant from the judge the next day. There is absolutely no valid excuse for not getting a search warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they need a warrant BEFORE they search someone's property. That's the point of having a warrant. If they can search before getting the warrant, then what's the point of the 4th amendment?
Nope, they really can get a retroactive warrant. I think they have to get it within 48 or 72 hours of conducting the search. If they do the search and the judge doesn't grant the warrant, nothing they found would be admissible during trial, which could very easily ruin their entire case. If the judge would have granted the warrant normally but doesn't agree that the police didn't have time to get it before the search, you might still end up with a pissed off judge that denies the warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the problem with just getting a search warrant?
Maybe "clouds" aren't in any single legal jurisdiction so they figure it will be as hard for you to fight their actions as it would be for them to get their warrant?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly is the problem with just getting a search warrant?
It is not convenient to have to bother with one.
Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
How are previously opened emails not in electronic storage? Are they electronic? Yes. Are they being stored? Yes. Thereby electronic storage. And how does the previously opened or unopened even come into play here? When I open my mail (and keep it in a filing cabinet in my house) is it any less mine than it was before I opened it? Would they still need a search warrant to find it, or is it not in "hard storage" because I opened it? I don't understand why people thing that storing things in the cloud makes them less mine (legally). When I rent a storage space barn they property I put in it is still mine, so if I'm using online servers to store information, that information should still be mine.
At the same time, I'm glad to see Google, the EFF, and such coming to help Yahoo. Obviously it's because they don't want precedent set, but still it's nice to see them playing nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Come meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Sheesh. 40 years of getting fooled again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note, don't forget that the White House considers unopened emails to be undelivered ;-)
OK DoJ (Score:5, Interesting)
Then post all your already read e-mails to the Internet.
Those offsite - and not just letters. (Score:2)
OK DoJ ... Then post all your already read e-mails to the Internet.
(Those still stored offsite, that is.)
While we're at it, post all your offsite filesystem backups, too. The same argument applies to them as you're using for the "opened" email.
Get ready for DoJ to go after file backup services (Score:2)
While we're at it, post all your offsite filesystem backups, too. The same argument applies to them as you're using for the "opened" email.
Thought I should make that more explicit. Filesystem backup services (especially the network/"cloud" based ones) are next if they get away with this.
(Or even if they don't win it. They'll just claim the loss was because it was "mail" and doesn't apply to "files". Win and they have the precedent. Lose and they start fresh.)
No Privicy if Networked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can hook your TI-85 up to a computer connected to the internet.
TI85 (Score:2)
You can hook your TI-85 up to a computer connected to the internet.
indeed. [ticalc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember the thinkgeek.com tee shirt "i read your e-mail"? We as the nerd community have known for years that if its on a computer it's fair game for any one clever enough to find a way in. The only secure system is the one that isn't networked and doesn't do anything that requires personal information of any kind, so that leaves us the NES and the TI85. Now the government want's to play with this power. Who is shocked by this?
This is like saying that the only secure home is the one buried underground and sealed off by concrete.
The gaps are obvious. Law enforcement has restrictions placed upon it expressly due to those gaps, not in spite of them.
My neighbor can peer in my windows, but this can't be used against me in court as it was illegal for him to do so. This doesn't mean I need to board up all my windows - that's simply not the logical solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Death of cloud services in 3..2..1 (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, this would put a damper on quite a few things if the government's motion is granted.
And what is the implication if I just keep marking things as unread?
4th Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It does not say that papers and effects in our houses are protected. Rather it treats them separately, with no distinguishment between them. Also, "effects" does not solely mean "possessions" though it does certainly include them. I would contend that email is an 'effect'.
Re: (Score:2)
right. Paper refers to documents aka information, be they on paper, lambskin, stone tablets, knots on a string, magnetically charged platters or electrons quantum tunneled into a resistor.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed; I would read effects as personal effects, things that you own and often carry on you (such as keys, wallet, etc). I would further say that being "secure in your houses" covers the rest of your possessions. Of course, IANAL - in fact, IANAUSCitizen either.
hurray! (Score:2)
Slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
But what I have seen happening with regards to internet privacy is a clear, real slippery slope. Mainly because of two factors:
A. Is NOT and never has been neccessary. (I.e. if they can get a warrant to read my my snail-mail, they can surely get one to read my email.)
B. Unlike the past centurey, technology now moves so quickly that lawmakers, judges and lawyers often are in the position of making judgments about things that they don't understand. So the slippery slope starts to be a real issue as they are forced to use less and less similar reference points as precedent instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slopes actually do exist, and as such identifying them in an argument doesn't do much to the argument itself.
Take courtship, for example. It is the quintessential slippery slope. You start off by simply talking, and wind up having sex. Without the talking, no sex. With the talking, maybe sex, maybe not. Depends on the rest. But the path is there, and it is generally on the part of the court-er to nudge things towards the slippery end, rather than against it. The first request is a reasonable
Private property access? (Score:2)
I understand that "the man" is not allowed to go through my stuff without a warrant and stuff like that, and that I cannot invoke any "don't touch that!" type of rights when "the man" wants to go through my friends' and associates' stuff, in their attempts at finding out stuff about me. Are they now, however, required to jump through similar hoops to compel others to show them or give them stuff? If the police turn up at my mom's house and ask to see all the letters I wrote to her (email or snail-mail) does
This one hurts (Score:2)
I'm a yahoo customer. I like being able to access old emails from anywhere.
Of course, those old emails contain letters to and from girlfriends. I wouldn't want anyone reading those.
There are emails to and from the porn site that ripped me off. However secretly proud I am of the fact that I talked them into giving me a refund, I'd rather the feds not know about it.
There are emails negotiating gun purchases from private individuals across the country. I followed all applicable laws, but you can't tell tha
all communications (Score:2)
I don't see why there is different treatment for mail, phone calls, email, SMS, online messengers, and so on. Never mind why there is differences depending on whether or not it has previously been read, or whether I'm using a pay phone.
It's all communications and I (should) have an expectation of privacy. What's the fundamental difference between a letter that is transported using a network of mail-men and one transported by a network of computers?
I don't care where it is "held". If I use a postbox I rent
UK can open post (Score:2)
Yeah cause it's *so* hard... (Score:2)
... to get a judge to sign a warrant. If they had to do that, that would totally stop abuses of power.
not.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an idea; why doesn't Google start automatically encrypting messages sent between Gmail accounts? This would pretty much close off a small, but decent, percentage of traffic from quasi-lawful snooping? Being that Google is the big player, it would provide impetuous for other email service providers to follow suit, or form agreements to cross encrypt with each other (all main from gmail to gmail will be encrypted, as will all main from gmail to yahoo, or yahoo to yahoo). It would be nice for marke
Re: (Score:2)
Because if they have the keys they've reduced it to the previous case - while if they don't have the keys they can't help users who lose their key, disrupting service.
However if the user is willing to take the risk on the key, it would make sense to encrypt the email for continued storage when the user "opens" it. Then Google can give the DoJ the encrypted mail and the finger. B-)
Use an asymmetric cypher and push th
Re: (Score:2)
One more tweak:
The server can keep the public key and encrypt the mail when it's received. Or even optionally hand it to the sender's mail agent to encrypt it before it is shipped to the server (though this would interfere with server-based anti-malware services).
Re: (Score:2)
Or even optionally hand it to the sender's mail agent to encrypt it before it is shipped to the server (though this would interfere with server-based anti-malware services).
Annnnd...
That reduces it to the case you wanted, Omestes. B-) Even without standardizing the protocol and deploying it globally, companies like Google and Yahoo can store the users' public mail keys and encrypt the mail as they send it between users within their service (as well as mail arriving from outside).