Internet/e-mail wiretaps, more big brother?

[beowolfe]

This story can't be true. Only George Bush would attempt fascist stunts like this.

Where's TM to debunk this?

We tried warning you wingnuts when you were cheering the passage of the Patriot Act. Now, a POTUS you don't agree with is in power.

 

[FireGod]

The government can monitor what xotoxi says as much as they want to.

As long as Gunny protects my real identity, then I'm all set.

I'm counting on you, Gunnyboy!!!

Hate to tell you this but you are fucked unless Gunny owns the site and even then you may be fucked as the subpoena would probably go to the hosting company of the site too and they will not care to upset homeland security.

Sorry

Big brother is watching you very intently now.

 

[ConHog]

Being on line is technically being in public, privacy is not guaranteed. E-mail on the other hand is technically private in so much as snail mail is considered private so the same rules and laws should apply.

Incorrect about email. It is not considered privileged private conversations in the way phone calls or snail mail are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Being on line is technically being in public, privacy is not guaranteed. E-mail on the other hand is technically private in so much as snail mail is considered private so the same rules and laws should apply.

My email is private, and I am pretty sure that is online.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...the same rules and laws should apply.

...just posting fact.

Public access/privacy laws. Should is a partial assumption on my part that they ALL do apply, not that they "should" apply. I guess I could have worded it better.

If we were in public I would know where you are, and what you look like. I know neither, and you know neither about me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Being on line is technically being in public, privacy is not guaranteed. E-mail on the other hand is technically private in so much as snail mail is considered private so the same rules and laws should apply.

Incorrect about email. It is not considered privileged private conversations in the way phone calls or snail mail are.

How do you figure that? I think you are relying on an old interpretation of the laws.

Appeals Court Says Feds Need Warrants to Search E-Mail | Threat Level | Wired.com

 

[ConHog]

Being on line is technically being in public, privacy is not guaranteed. E-mail on the other hand is technically private in so much as snail mail is considered private so the same rules and laws should apply.

Incorrect about email. It is not considered privileged private conversations in the way phone calls or snail mail are.

How do you figure that? I think you are relying on an old interpretation of the laws.

Appeals Court Says Feds Need Warrants to Search E-Mail | Threat Level | Wired.com

That is true as concerns the feds. However , your ISP or internet provider, or employer needs no such warrant to search through your email and report you to the authorities if need be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Incorrect about email. It is not considered privileged private conversations in the way phone calls or snail mail are.

How do you figure that? I think you are relying on an old interpretation of the laws.

Appeals Court Says Feds Need Warrants to Search E-Mail | Threat Level | Wired.com

That is true as concerns the feds. However , your ISP or internet provider, or employer needs no such warrant to search through your email and report you to the authorities if need be.

My ISP might not need a warrant, but they do need to worry about the resulting lawsuit if they do that. As for my employer, it depends on their policies. They have to clearly state that any computer they won is subject to being monitored, and that they have the right to go into my work email. Believe it or not, they also have a right to go into my work related snail mail. and even tap the phones they own, if they say so up front. Try calling customer service for almost anyone if you don't believe me.

I think you are simply confusing two separate areas of law.