email in your 'home'

[Matthew Gillen]

All the more reason to run your own mail server:
http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/district-judge-concludes-e-mail-not-protected-by-fourth-amendment/
...

> When a person uses the Internet, however, the user's actions are no
> longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting
> in private space at all. The user is generally accessing the Internet
> with a network account and computer storage owned by an ISP like Comcast
> or NetZero. All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or
> remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an
> ISP. When we send an e-mail or instant message from the comfort of our
> own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our computer
> to computers owned by a third party, the ISP, before being delivered to
> the intended recipient. Thus, "private" information is actually being
> held by third-party private companies.

...
> First, it is uncertain whether we have a reasonable expectation of
> privacy in information sent through or stored by ISPs because the Fourth
> Amendment does not protect information revealed to third parties.

If this stands, I imagine it will have the exact same effect as what the
British cops say will happen if their 3-strikes law goes into effect:
email encryption becomes standard operating procedure for everyone, and law
enforcement's job actually gets more difficult:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0254326689.shtml

It's also not a good precedent for cloud-computing, google apps, amazon s3, etc.

Matt

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[crschmidt]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:03:52PM -0400, Matthew Gillen wrote:

> All the more reason to run your own mail server:
> http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/district-judge-concludes-e-mail-not-protected-by-fourth-amendment/
> ...
> > When a person uses the Internet, however, the user's actions are no
> > longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting
> > in private space at all. The user is generally accessing the Internet
> > with a network account and computer storage owned by an ISP like Comcast
> > or NetZero. All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or
> > remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an
> > ISP. When we send an e-mail or instant message from the comfort of our
> > own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our computer
> > to computers owned by a third party, the ISP, before being delivered to
> > the intended recipient. Thus, "private" information is actually being
> > held by third-party private companies.
> ...
> > First, it is uncertain whether we have a reasonable expectation of
> > privacy in information sent through or stored by ISPs because the Fourth
> > Amendment does not protect information revealed to third parties.
>
> If this stands, I imagine it will have the exact same effect as what the
> British cops say will happen if their 3-strikes law goes into effect:
> email encryption becomes standard operating procedure for everyone, and law
> enforcement's job actually gets more difficult:
> http://techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0254326689.shtml

Do you really think that most 'criminals' who have something to hide are
using unencrypted email to transfer that information?

I think that there will be an increased number of people who don't
really have anything to hide, but have the possibility of being harassed
-- because their communications are essentially public -- using
encryption if it becomes the 'default' in mail applications.

Overall, I don't think this is a bad thing; if this ruling led to
software changing to use encryption by default, it would help out the
vast majority of people who have no idea that plain text email
communication is not private, by making it so.

That said, I expect that this won't change much; I certainly wouldn't
have expected my email to be protected against search and seizure based
on the fourth amendment. ("Don't put anything in email that you wouldn't
put on a billboard" is always the way I've heard it.)

> It's also not a good precedent for cloud-computing, google apps,
> amazon s3, etc.

This has been brought up repeatedly as a problem with using the cloud.
However, it applies equally to non-cloud applications: Any 'slicehost'
style setups, where you're paying for a chunk of someone else's server,
would probably be similarly affected.

Regards,
--
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Bill Horne-14]

Christopher Schmidt wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:03:52PM -0400, Matthew Gillen wrote:
>  
>> All the more reason to run your own mail server:
>> http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/district-judge-concludes-e-mail-not-protected-by-fourth-amendment/
>> ...
>>    
>>> When a person uses the Internet, however, the user's actions are no
>>> longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting
>>> in private space at all. ... Thus, "private" information is actually being
>>> held by third-party private companies.
>>>      
>> ...
>>    
>>> First, it is uncertain whether we have a reasonable expectation of
>>> privacy in information sent through or stored by ISPs because the Fourth
>>> Amendment does not protect information revealed to third parties.
>>>      
>> If this stands, I imagine it will have the exact same effect as what the
>> British cops say will happen if their 3-strikes law goes into effect:
>> email encryption becomes standard operating procedure for everyone, and law
>> enforcement's job actually gets more difficult:
>> http://techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0254326689.shtml
>>    
>
> Do you really think that most 'criminals' who have something to hide are
> using unencrypted email to transfer that information?
>
> I think that there will be an increased number of people who don't
> really have anything to hide, but have the possibility of being harassed
> -- because their communications are essentially public -- using
> encryption if it becomes the 'default' in mail applications.
>
> Overall, I don't think this is a bad thing; if this ruling led to
> software changing to use encryption by default, it would help out the
> vast majority of people who have no idea that plain text email
> communication is not private, by making it so.
>
> That said, I expect that this won't change much; I certainly wouldn't
> have expected my email to be protected against search and seizure based
> on the fourth amendment. ("Don't put anything in email that you wouldn't
> put on a billboard" is always the way I've heard it.)
>  

IANALB, I'd bet the supremes will eventually set the precedent to mirror
the rules affecting messengers; trusted third-parties transporting
information for a fee.

As far as encryption goes, that's a double edged sword:

   1. Universal use of encryption will dramatically reduce spam, since
      each message must be individually encrypted, and the overhead will
      make some spam unprofitable.
   2. It will tempt governments to reopen the "Key escrow" issue, or
      (worse by far) to demand backdoors in PGP/GPG/whatever.
   3. The server weenies won't be able to read the emails you send to
      your wife.
   4. Companies will be hiring a lot of security experts to supervise
      local key escrow for employee emails.

We'll have to wait and see how the legal issue shakes out.

Bill

--
E. William Horne
William Warren Consulting
Computer & Network Installations, Security, and Service
http://william-warren.com
781-784-7287


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[jay-118]

This is really the same rules they have involving phone calls, and postal mail.  They do not need to notify you, they just need probable cause and a warrent.

Further hosting your own mail server, with out strong encryption, will not help.  Your mail still touches plenty of other servers along the way to be "taped".  It will however protect the stored mail on your system.  But its probably stored elsewhere as well.

The best way to keep your information secure is elect politicians that care more about the constitution than about their own personal views and greed.
 
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt@...>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:35:24
To: Matthew Gillen<me@...>
Cc: Blu<discuss@...>
Subject: Re: email in your 'home'

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:03:52PM -0400, Matthew Gillen wrote:

> All the more reason to run your own mail server:
> http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/district-judge-concludes-e-mail-not-protected-by-fourth-amendment/
> ...
> > When a person uses the Internet, however, the user's actions are no
> > longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting
> > in private space at all. The user is generally accessing the Internet
> > with a network account and computer storage owned by an ISP like Comcast
> > or NetZero. All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or
> > remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an
> > ISP. When we send an e-mail or instant message from the comfort of our
> > own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our computer
> > to computers owned by a third party, the ISP, before being delivered to
> > the intended recipient. Thus, "private" information is actually being
> > held by third-party private companies.
> ...
> > First, it is uncertain whether we have a reasonable expectation of
> > privacy in information sent through or stored by ISPs because the Fourth
> > Amendment does not protect information revealed to third parties.
>
> If this stands, I imagine it will have the exact same effect as what the
> British cops say will happen if their 3-strikes law goes into effect:
> email encryption becomes standard operating procedure for everyone, and law
> enforcement's job actually gets more difficult:
> http://techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0254326689.shtml

Do you really think that most 'criminals' who have something to hide are
using unencrypted email to transfer that information?

I think that there will be an increased number of people who don't
really have anything to hide, but have the possibility of being harassed
-- because their communications are essentially public -- using
encryption if it becomes the 'default' in mail applications.

Overall, I don't think this is a bad thing; if this ruling led to
software changing to use encryption by default, it would help out the
vast majority of people who have no idea that plain text email
communication is not private, by making it so.

That said, I expect that this won't change much; I certainly wouldn't
have expected my email to be protected against search and seizure based
on the fourth amendment. ("Don't put anything in email that you wouldn't
put on a billboard" is always the way I've heard it.)

> It's also not a good precedent for cloud-computing, google apps,
> amazon s3, etc.

This has been brought up repeatedly as a problem with using the cloud.
However, it applies equally to non-cloud applications: Any 'slicehost'
style setups, where you're paying for a chunk of someone else's server,
would probably be similarly affected.

Regards,
--
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[crschmidt]

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 02:59:25PM +0000, jay@... wrote:
> This is really the same rules they have involving phone calls, and postal mail.  They do not need to notify you, they just need probable cause and a warrent.

Actually, this is different. The reason they need a warrant is because
of the fourth amendment, which prevents such 'search and seizure' (of
property or information) *without* a warrant.

This judge is saying "Because you gave it to your ISP, you gave up all notion
of privacy" -- in other words, "We don't need a warrant, you already
wrote it on a billboard."

At least, that's what it sounds like to me.

-- Chris

> Further hosting your own mail server, with out strong encryption, will not help.  Your mail still touches plenty of other servers along the way to be "taped".  It will however protect the stored mail on your system.  But its probably stored elsewhere as well.
>
> The best way to keep your information secure is elect politicians that care more about the constitution than about their own personal views and greed.
>  
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt@...>
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:35:24
> To: Matthew Gillen<me@...>
> Cc: Blu<discuss@...>
> Subject: Re: email in your 'home'
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:03:52PM -0400, Matthew Gillen wrote:
> > All the more reason to run your own mail server:
> > http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/district-judge-concludes-e-mail-not-protected-by-fourth-amendment/
> > ...
> > > When a person uses the Internet, however, the user's actions are no
> > > longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting
> > > in private space at all. The user is generally accessing the Internet
> > > with a network account and computer storage owned by an ISP like Comcast
> > > or NetZero. All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or
> > > remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an
> > > ISP. When we send an e-mail or instant message from the comfort of our
> > > own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our computer
> > > to computers owned by a third party, the ISP, before being delivered to
> > > the intended recipient. Thus, "private" information is actually being
> > > held by third-party private companies.
> > ...
> > > First, it is uncertain whether we have a reasonable expectation of
> > > privacy in information sent through or stored by ISPs because the Fourth
> > > Amendment does not protect information revealed to third parties.
> >
> > If this stands, I imagine it will have the exact same effect as what the
> > British cops say will happen if their 3-strikes law goes into effect:
> > email encryption becomes standard operating procedure for everyone, and law
> > enforcement's job actually gets more difficult:
> > http://techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0254326689.shtml
>
> Do you really think that most 'criminals' who have something to hide are
> using unencrypted email to transfer that information?
>
> I think that there will be an increased number of people who don't
> really have anything to hide, but have the possibility of being harassed
> -- because their communications are essentially public -- using
> encryption if it becomes the 'default' in mail applications.
>
> Overall, I don't think this is a bad thing; if this ruling led to
> software changing to use encryption by default, it would help out the
> vast majority of people who have no idea that plain text email
> communication is not private, by making it so.
>
> That said, I expect that this won't change much; I certainly wouldn't
> have expected my email to be protected against search and seizure based
> on the fourth amendment. ("Don't put anything in email that you wouldn't
> put on a billboard" is always the way I've heard it.)
>
> > It's also not a good precedent for cloud-computing, google apps,
> > amazon s3, etc.
>
> This has been brought up repeatedly as a problem with using the cloud.
> However, it applies equally to non-cloud applications: Any 'slicehost'
> style setups, where you're paying for a chunk of someone else's server,
> would probably be similarly affected.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christopher Schmidt
> MetaCarta
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@...
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@...
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

--
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss