Shared publicly  - 
 
Should cops need warrants to search e-mails?
59
10
Dong-il Kim's profile photoRyan Boyd's profile photoJoey D's profile photoJohn Hart's profile photo
41 comments
 
I was going to say they need an act of Congress, but considering Congress lately, that's probably not a good idea.
Mark H
+
4
5
4
 
Absolutely; it is just like reading your regular mail.
 
data mining has been true in fact for 20 years. the n.s.a. runs a computer program that has a list of around 650,000 catch phrases and statements (plus non conversations or code talk)  and every satellite and fibre optic sent communication is ran through this program where if  it fits 1 of a few flagging guideline parameter's  it will register and either spit out a paper listing right then or even just be stored, but nevertheless every fibre optic and or satellite communication is straight up recorded by the pigs
 
I consider the fact that email is password protected reason enough to say yes. There is an expectation of privacy in much the same way one expects it on a landline or cell phone, both of which require a warrant to listen in on. (In theory, barring the patriot act)
Reading another person's email is no different to me than going to their mailbox and steaming open all of their mail to read it.
 
If I had a letter in my mailbox at home for a year, they would still need a warrant to read it, why is the virtual any different?
 
Yes. Without a doubt. It's private property. 
 
Was it ever a threat? I point to the computer skills displayed in the Casey Anthony trial. 
 
I think so... it's a form of wiretapping imo...
 
It depends on the situation.  [there goes free speech]
 
Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy? I'd say no- it's the internet afterall.  If the e-mail was encrypted, then yes.  It's like sending a letter versus a postcard in the mail.
I'd like for it to require a warrant, don't get me wrong, but legally- they can make a case against it.
 
maybe it's best to not use the internet for important secrets. that are for your eyes only.
 
No they shouldn't. Nothing is private anymore. 
 
+Rudy Villalobos  I hope you are just joking. that is the most retarded statement i have heard :P  its like saying "you should be taxed to breath air, you get taxed on everything already"
 
+Bryan Peretto I would disagree. The use of a password makes it more like a letter and not a postcard. (Especially when both ends are password protected) A public Facebook post or tweet would be a better postcard analogy. Encryption would be like encrypting the text on the page of a letter before mailing it. An extra layer of security, but should have no bearing on a requirement for a warrant.
 
E_mail is as safe as putting a dollar bill on every telephone pole in the world and expecting it not to be ganked. i think two seperate types of web address fed secured and not. This way when we use it to vote we wont paranoid it away.
#t#
 
+richard brinton regular mail is exactly as safe as a dollar on a light pole. Anyone could open your mailbox and take out a letter to read with no expertise whatsoever. A warrant is still required for the government to do it legally though.
 
ah k  theeee usps is the last bastion of agency self sufficiency, i think they still have no off budget enterprise bonds issued.  For the  f.b.i. TO USE said recording or searching of otherwise private documents as admissible in a judiciary  court, it must be under the colourings of federal law which is under the 14th amendment and subject to equal protections and considerations,   meaning regardless of hearsay or unproven assumptions every u.s. citizen  must be treated as equal to ALL other u.s. citizens for as we know any government agency or law that has a bias intent purpose or outcome is mooted as such by the 14 th amendment ( the 11th amendment commerce guys get a little legal wiggle room.) but like all constitutional amendments, it must be taken with paramount supremacy.
#t#
 Hence "sure you can read my shiiii... but i getsta read yours as well. so when a bill collector corp.calls and if they record me i state immediately that im recording them, to which they then refuse and hang up. 
 
I understand your point +Eric Taney but a password doesn't mean much. To use your example, I need a password to get into Facebook, too.  I was referring more to the actual transport method of an e-mail-- across the public internet sometimes through state (ie university) routers and such. And what if transport crosses international borders into countries that do allow snooping?  As mentioned elsewhere- don't put anything on the internet you wouldn't want everyone to see.  Should it be that way? No. But that's the reality of it. If it's not this government, it's another, or it's some "hacker" group that can access your data.
 
   
veerily so   any time that a gov agency anywhere has the capacity of snooping, the people deserve the same exact right, unless a judge decree's from findings by a jury of approximate piers that one  lose's said rights and for what amount of time. otherwise there is no reason i cannot do the same as another whether in a gov. agency or corp. or a single random civilian, this was what was fought over with great suffering and terror.  soooo in keeping with this adverse legalism there must be a Internet vote and nothing else shall ever suffice 
Add a comment...