1

I blame BOOOSH. 

2 it comes in handy when you need material to use against your political opponents

3 If the original law was written in '86, that kind of makes sense.  I do agree that the law needs to be updated to reflect current realities, though.

4 Not this administration.

5 That's insane. That's insane.

Hey, don't be stealing my shtick, stealing my shtick.

6 George Carlin used to think that his phones were tapped by the FBI.  He claims he answered the phone with "Fuck Hoover.  Hello."

Do the same with the signature on your free accounts.  Add something about "Screw the FBI."

7 They told me if I voted for John McCain that the government would be reading my email...AND THEY WERE RIGHT!

8 Heh - elections have consequences and guess what?  I WON!

9

How many people were using email in 1986, outside of the military and some companies?  Seriously?  In today's world, this is COMPLETELY outdated.  And you're right -- scary.  Really, REALLY scary.

What next?  Access to instant message logs?  Text messages?   Will they have the right to intercept my email when I hit "SEND" and hold onto it for perusal at a later date? 

10 Umm...hell.  The 'considered abandoned' part may be sound, if the entities in question have no active account or deal to hold their messaging there.  This smells more like sloppy electronic infrastructure and less-than-full disclosure of process to customers coming back to haunt folks.  It's an issue that needs to be dealt with post-haste, though I suspect the solution is 'confidential e-mail' services that automatically purge after a certain length of time with an account unmaintained.

Now, if it's on servers where an active account is maintained, it becomes very questionable...

11 Is the cloud Meechele's hiney ?

12 OpenPGP

13

Hey I just saw on drudge that food and gas prices are on the rise.

No way ?  I hadn't noticed.

14 Fear me, bitches! 

You thought Carnivore was bad? 

15

Is the cloud Meechele's hiney ?

How much Email can you store in a gigabut  

16 Pain at the Pump? Nope. Pain at the checkout line? Nope. Pain at the Government teet? Yes!

17 ECPA seems to have treated off-site e-mail as "property", as in files left in a box in a storage facility that you stopped paying for.  After some period of time, they auction that shit off, don't they?

With more and more off-site storage being used for permanent things (like backups, web sites, etc) this idea is no longer valid.  It isn't really abandoned, especially e-mail that is kept pursuant to federal records retention requirements.

Obama's simply trying to prevent legislation updating a law to handle new tech so he and his idiot minions can either abuse it, or claim to have been victimized by it at a later date.

18 We'll be looking into your now cloud Mr. Ace.

19

Hey I just saw on drudge that food and gas prices are on the rise.

No way ?  I hadn't noticed.

Posted by: in other news at April 08, 2011 03:58 PM (LJ0Nj)

Seriously.  A little late to the party there, media, ne?  

I took my mother to the grocery store yesterday and she wanted to buy some hamburger rolls.  She took one look at the price and said, "Forget it!  We'll just use the leftover bread!"

And don't get me STARTED on her reaction to the price of sausage patties...

20 How dare you question the soft-hands and word-workers.  They're looking out for you.

21 Crap, wrong thread.

22 I guess this means the government knows an awful lot about how to enlarge a penis and where to get the cheapest and BEST generic viagra.

23 Just pretend I commented in the correct thread.

24 This probably made some sort of sense when people primarily used POP3 accounts.

25 And don't get me STARTED on her reaction to the price of sausage patties...

Grind your own. They're so much better that way and you can get pork shoulder for 99cents a pound.

26

If you like your email privacy, you can keep your email privacy.

Oh wait, no you can't.  Why not?  'Cuz I WON.

27

If this is going to be the policy, then tell us so we can make arrangements going forward.

What good would that do? Seriously: It isn't snooping unless you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

28

With the paradigm shift that has occurred in information technology the country (and world) is due for a good hard look at privacy law, and it would be beneficial for libertarians and conservatives to lead on the issue before those who trust the government to be Daddy and Mommy lead instead.  If the Libertarian party wanted to grow it's footprint, it might want to drop the issue of pot-smoker's individual rights and jump all over individual's rights to privacy.

A straight forward and understandable stance on privacy rights should be part of both party's platforms in 2012.

29 Grind your own. They're so much better that way and you can get pork shoulder for 99cents a pound.

Posted by: taylork at April 08, 2011 04:03 PM (5wsU9)

Now that my father has taken over the cooking (he's retired and it gives him something to do), I might suggest that.  I think he'd enjoy it.

30

Here is the rule:

If you don't want the entire world to know something, don't put it on a computer.

The converse applies.

 

31 The problem with American law, is that so much of it requires the "Reasonableness" standard, and reasonable people seem to be in increasingly short supply.

32 26

If you like your email privacy, you can keep your email privacy.

Oh wait, no you can't.  Why not?  'Cuz I WON.

You forgot to add "BITCHES!!" at the end.

33 Meh.  I thought it was the government sending me all of that nasty-assed pron spam to begin with.

34 I thought Gmail's selling point was that you could store email on it. How does that convert to being abandoned?

35 31The problem with American law, is that so much of it requires the "Reasonableness" standard, and reasonable people seem to be in increasingly short supply.

Posted by: DKS at April 08, 2011 04:07 PM (3vrnt)

That's because the Age of Reason is coming to an end...this is the beginning of the Age of Chaos...just ask Kratos...

36

How many people were using email in 1986, outside of the military and some companies?  Seriously?  In today's world, this is COMPLETELY outdated.  And you're right -- scary.  Really, REALLY scary.

In 1986 relatively few people had home computers, and public Internet use was practically non-existant.  Maybe you had a 2400 baud modem to connect to a BBS server or something.  Almost nobody even knew the Internet existed, much less used or even had the ability to send e-mail.

I have to wonder how well the legislators who passed the law even understood what they were voting on.

37

But always remember, it was Bush who was shredding the Constitution.

Fuck.

38 Damned sock

39 "The internet is a series of tubes..."

40

Here is the rule:

If you don't want the entire world to know something, don't put it on a computer.

The converse applies.

 Posted by: West at April 08, 2011 04:06 PM (1Rgee)

...

That has given me a wicked conspiracy theory.

We're only finding out about this now, right?  Presumably it's been out there in the techie consciousness for a while, but only now is Wired publishing anything about it.  Of course we're all going to have this same reaction: "What?  You mean they can look at my old emails?  And i wouldn't even KNOW?"  We all panic and start trying to find alternate ways to communicate that don't involve the 'net.  A lot of people fall back on the "old faithful" message delivery system: the US Postal Service.

What's that you say?  The USPS is making a little more money now?  It's only THREE billion dollars in the red instead of six billion?  Why, by gum, I guess we can forget all that chit chat about reforming the postal service!  It's roaring back to life!

41 Ace,
Your mail analogy is apt. They can open old or abandoned mail and the same thing is in play here. It's considered to have been undelivered. The solution is to not keep anything older than six months  or use a client, on your pc or phone, which deletes the email from the server as it's downloaded. Unfortunately that mean the mail is only there for 6 months forthe former and only available on one device for the latter.

We won't even get into backups of stuff in the cloud. It makes your brain hurt.

42 OT: Schumer likens conservatives to a flea

43 Now that I've had to cancel my well-deserved vacation this weekend, I'm out for blood! I am going to read the fuck out of your e-mails, wingnutz!!!11!!1!

44 Liberal meme parrot: "I have to wonder how well the legislators who passed the law even understood what they were voting on."

We should ask Al Gore and the legislator who thought the internet a series of tubes. They're the experts.

45 You can't expect me to look into this. We're in a government shut down dontcha know?

46 NO, this is not true.

Email is considered private correspondence and is never considered "abandoned" because it's on a server somewhere. Your post office letters aren't considered fair game just because they forget to deliver them for months.

If this were remotely true, then all of the hoops my coworkers jump through to read emails legally could just be ignored.

47

Does this mean my plot to overthrow a hostess twinkie plant is now scrapped??

Dammit.

48 Dude. That cloud server isn't yours. You didn't build it or buy it. It belongs to somebody else, Mr. Google perhaps. And the records and data on Mr. Google's servers belong to Mr. Google, not you. Why would you have any expectation of privacy in Mr. Google's business records and data?

49 Let me see if I've got this right. The concept of privacy can be twisted and pretzeled into meaning that it's ok to kill a newborn by sticking a pair of scissors into it's brain - as enshrined into law by the Supreme Court - but expecting your correspondence, electronic or not, to be private is too far of a stretch. Hmmmm. Welcome to the brave new world.

50 Schumer is like the chicken bone caught in your dog's anus.

51 Hey, we're gonna make a killing on old fashioned, downloadable POP email accounts...

52

A subpoena is all you've ever needed for email older than 180 days. A court order/search warrant is needed for newer stuff.  Are they trying to change that? It wasn't clear to me.

Personally I think anyone is insane for storing personal stuff in a "cloud."  That just seems to me to be asking for trouble from the government or hackers.

 

53 51 Schumer is like the chicken bone caught in your dog's anus.

Posted by: Fritz at April 08, 2011 04:16 PM (GwPRU)

...

That's an image I may never shake.  Thank you, Fritz.

54 MWR, I think most people are adapting simply by giving up on the concept of privacy, or at least by not making a big deal out of it. Basically, people are being made accustomed to the idea that they have no right to private space and thus large institutions like the government and large corporations can do with them and their data as they like.

55

@9: "How many people were using email in 1986, outside of the military and some companies?  Seriously?  In today's world, this is COMPLETELY outdated.  And you're right -- scary.  Really, REALLY scary."

Tsk-tsk.  There you peasants go thinking you have "rights" again.  Get it through your heads.  You have only the privileges that We see fit to grant you, subject to Our revocation at any time - even after the fact - and for any reason.  Now go pay your fucking taxes; some of Us have third houses to pay for.

56 Let me help you with your anti-government conspiracy privacy concerns.

57 55 MWR, I think most people are adapting simply by giving up on the concept of privacy, or at least by not making a big deal out of it. Basically, people are being made accustomed to the idea that they have no right to private space and thus large institutions like the government and large corporations can do with them and their data as they like.

Posted by: joncelli at April 08, 2011 04:18 PM (RD7QR)

Call me tinfoil hat-ready or whatnot but I don't even take my iphone with me when I go to the store, movies, etc.  The GPS tracking thing freaks me out.

58 OT: Obama put his vacay on-hold

59 55 MWR, I think most people are adapting simply by giving up on the concept of privacy, or at least by not making a big deal out of it. Basically, people are being made accustomed to the idea that they have no right to private space and thus large institutions like the government and large corporations can do with them and their data as they like.

Posted by: joncelli at April 08, 2011 04:18 PM (RD7QR)

Although people will snap your head off if you ask them to be a little quieter on their cellphone because you don't really want to hear the gory details of their colonoscopy.  "Bitch, if you don't want to hear, don't listen!"

The world is upside down and inside out.  Maybe it would make more sense if I stood on my head and rotated my eyeballs.

60 Of course, who believes we have a 4th Amendment anymore?

When that bitch-face O'Conner let stand DWI checkpoints and forced blood-testing, that was the last shovel-full of dirt on an already well-buried coffin.

It all started going downhill 'cause of the fascist left's hatred of the autonomy of the automobile. They've carved out so many exception to the 4th that it has been swallowed up because  "don't ya' know? People in cars commit all the crimes."

That's why your local PD can whine about cut-backs and such but still needs to maintain a watchful eye under a shade-tree.

61 Jeez, come check this out guys, this guy has nothing but ewok porn and cheap vodka royalty e-checks in his email inbox.

62 Why would you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in email? The actual process of emailing something involves unencrypted, unsecured transmission of your data, which hops around from one third party to another, and being copied in up to a dozen places, before it finally arrives at its final destination. Email does not get sent to someone like an actual physical letter, covered in an envelope to keep its contents private. It's like requesting an expectation of privacy in the words on a postcard. Why? They're there for everyone to see!

63 63 Jeez, come check this out guys, this guy has nothing but ewok porn and cheap vodka royalty e-checks in his email inbox.

Posted by: The Government at April 08, 2011 04:22 PM (wuv1c)

Can we enlist a honey badger to guard the cloud I wonder?  Honey badger don't give a shit, so as long as we kept him stocked with premium cobras and beehives as a steady food supply and sparring partner(s), we could fend off government snoops for a good long time.

64 >>>What good would that do? Seriously: It isn't snooping unless you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. but that's the point: I DO have that expectation, and if the government believes otherwise and is going to put that belief into practice, they need to stop letting people like me remain ignorant about this. If they deliberately let me believe I have such a right to privacy in my electronic letters, then I do.

65 The problem is even if I delete all the email in my gmail account, Google maintains backups, so it still exists. Under this theory, pretty much all of your electronic communications are "abandoned" even if you make every attempt to destroy them. An analogy would be the Post Office making a copy of all of your letters (for your convenience, of course) so 6 months down the road The Man will have free access to correspondance that you shredded.

66

this is why i never put anything into a personal or work email that i would be shocked or embarrassed to see on the front page of the newspaper.

 

67 Gnupg with cryptophane make encryption as easy as right-mouse click.

68 9 How many people were using email in 1986, outside of the military and some companies?
_________

E-mail was all the rage at USU when I was there, '81 - '86. Back when I started, VMS didn't stop you from putting escape sequences in your e-mail so you could send someone a message that would stuff a command into the terminal's answerback message, then instruct the terminal to send it back.

Good times, good times.

Another fun one was TYPE CRA0:, which would display the next card deck someone put in the reader. That let you scribble down their user name and password. It was, of course, not as transparent as just rummaging around the wastebasket; there was always somebody stupid enough to throw away their username/password cards.

69

@62: "Of course, who believes we have a 4th Amendment anymore?

When that bitch-face O'Conner let stand DWI checkpoints and forced blood-testing, that was the last shovel-full of dirt on an already well-buried coffin."

*giggle*

Yet nearly all of you maintain your full and unquestioning faith in the system. Inshallah and Praise Gaia, you people are just so cute and fun to torment.

70

@64: "Why would you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in email?"

Why would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your house?  It has windows and doors, does it not?  Anyone can just walk up and look right inside.  Heck, with very little effort, they can just *go* inside.

71 "but that's the point: I DO have that expectation, and if the government believes otherwise and is going to put that belief into practice, they need to stop letting people like me remain ignorant about this."

(1) They've already had that belief in practice for the last two decades. It's nothing new.
(2) The thing about "reasonable" expectations of privacy is that they're assessed by the "objective" standard of reasonableness. Yes, a huge swath of the public has a "subjective" expectation of privacy, but that doesn't mean that the public is being reasonable. After all, huge swaths of the public expect some privacy while yacking about their intimate moments on a cell phone on the street corner, and there's nothing reasonable about that. Once the actual technical process of emailing is considered, there's really nothing objectively reasonable about expecting privacy.

When you email something, you give license to your email provider to transfer it willy-nilly across servers from their database to another. In that process, it gets copied and re-copied onto third party servers as it goes. Your "private" data is out there for anyone who's looking for it to see, plain as day. It's perfectly analogous to mailing someone a postcard -- words plainly written and visible to anyone who picks it up don't get any expectation of privacy. If you want privacy by snail-mail, you have to send it enclosed in an envelope; there's no way for a postcard to gain an expectation of privacy. You can't write "DON'T READ THIS!" on it and expect someone to stop reading there. If you want privacy in email, the same thing holds. If you want your privacy constitutionally protected, write a letter and seal it in an envelope.

72 "Why would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your house?  It has windows and doors, does it not?  Anyone can just walk up and look right inside."

Indeed. This is why you don't have an expectation of privacy on anything that the cops can see while looking into your house from the road beside it with binoculars.

There have been cases about that.

73

It's all out there.

74

Thanks, ÚÑÈ , I translated that and it turned out to be instructions on how to burn a Koran. I'll make good use of that.

75 51 Schumer is like the chicken bone caught in your dog's anus.

I disagree.  A chicken bone in a dog's ass has some value.  It can at least get you sympathy from the babes.  I have yet to hear a redeeming quality or use for Schumer. 

76

@74: "When you email something, you give license to your email provider to transfer it willy-nilly across servers from their database to another."

Perhaps, but I have to have  password to access my e-mail, and the recipient has to have a password to access theirs to read it.  That implies a pretty strong expectation of privacy.

77

69  /

The Ying/Yang Spammer.

 

78

@75: "Indeed. This is why you don't have an expectation of privacy on anything that the cops can see while looking into your house from the road beside it with binoculars."

*giggle*

Again, it's so funny the way you peasants just let Us take whatever We want from you. 

79 That implies a pretty strong expectation of privacy.

It implies it, but doesn't deliver any actual protection.  My mailbox has a lock on it, but the postman can still read the postcard before it goes in the slot.

80 "Perhaps, but I have to have  password to access my e-mail, and the recipient has to have a password to access theirs to read it.  That implies a pretty strong expectation of privacy."

When I write a postcard from my house, and mail it to your house, it's gone from one place requiring a warrant to search to another that requires a warrant to search. So what? Everything that happens in between sending and receiving it was totally out in the open, plain for everyone who comes across it to see. Same with email.

81

@78: "I have yet to hear a redeeming quality or use for Schumer."

Testing tracheal skin allergies to hemp/synthetic fiber mixes.  Studying the impact of sudden deceleration trauma to the cervical vertebrae.  Bayonet practice.  He has all sorts of uses.

82 You do read the small print on all of the Terms you click on, don't you?

BTW, pixy is somewhere on a sailboat in the South Pacific, right, running this thing off of iron-nickle batteries and a surplus windmill.

83 Hmmm... Google recently changed gmail so that you can't delete anything anymore from an email manager or device. Example: I read all my email either with Outlook , my iPad, or my phone. Delete is no longer present and has been replaced with "archive". In order to actually delete anything, I have to log into gmail directly and clean out the archive folder. Of course, everything that I "delete" from the archive folder goes into the "trash" folder, which is another step to empty. Coincidence?

84 This is a law written in 1986. When the internet and email as it existed in 1993, let alone 2011 did not exist. There is no way in hell that law would hold up under constitutional challenge. My emails are mine. And the only time that kind of situation would even apply would be if an online email provider automatically discontinued your account after a set period of inactivity. At which point they should be bound by law to delete the content. There is no such thing as "abandoned" in cyberspace. Those emails are either mine, or they are to be deleted. Period.

85 If they word-pattern search for Ewok, pudding and probe, alot of people are going to be in trouble.

86

@82: "It implies it, but doesn't deliver any actual protection.  My mailbox has a lock on it, but the postman can still read the postcard before it goes in the slot."

The postman can yes, but he's delivering it, and the post card was specifically sent via a government service.  So, service providers may have some right to read an e-mail.  However, service contracts often provide that privacy is protected as to third parties [your neighbors, in your locked mailbox example] (and I have yet to see one that contains an express waiver of the right to privacy on the part of the account holder).  Further, some states do have an express right to privacy that does not depend on penumbras and emanations - so the Feds would still be barred by that.

Also, in your mailbox example, anyone other than you who takes something from your box to read it is commiting a criminal act.

87 Gnupg, OpenPGP

Using those just solves the government's biggest problem - separating the wheat from the chaff" - easier.  It is easy to sort out the encrypted packets for a looksee.  If some sort of public-key crypto was common - then it would make sense.

88 If the original law was written in '86, that kind of makes sense. I do agree that the law needs to be updated to reflect current realities, though.

If the law were updated now, Google would be granted the exclusive right to delivery of all electronic communications originating in, destined for, or passing through the U.S., and bypassing their servers would be a federal crime, and they'd be legally obligated to set up a million-man department to read everyone's email (and sic the FBI on anyone the SPLC says is talking like a terrorist), paid by a $700k-per-employee-per-year federal grant to Google and SEIU, of which the readers would be paid $22k each—but they'd be immune from prosecution for blackmail, insider trading, identity theft, possession and distribution of obscene materials, stalking, harassment, etc.

Current reality.

89

@83: "When I write a postcard from my house, and mail it to your house, it's gone from one place requiring a warrant to search to another that requires a warrant to search. So what? Everything that happens in between sending and receiving it was totally out in the open, plain for everyone who comes across it to see. Same with email"

No, not the same.  You voluntarily sent your postcard via a government service.  You gave it to them.  Under your analogy, if I send a post card via bike courier or Federal Express, the government still has a right to read it while it is in transit.  They don't.

90 Funny, I was thinking of setting up my own server for a few reasons, this wasn't one of them, but maybe I'll add it to the list.

91 The bottom line is that you never put anything out there that you wouldn't want the government, your parents or your kids to see.

92 The setup incidents A_Z are all trying to use e- or mugbok connotations.

93 It is easy to sort out the encrypted packets for a looksee.

Steganography!  I wasn't trying to lay out the entire scenario for concealing your nefarious activities.

94 "This is a law written in 1986. When the internet and email as it existed in 1993, let alone 2011 did not exist. There is no way in hell that law would hold up under constitutional challenge."

Not necessarily true. For emails to receive constitutional protection, people would need to show why there is a "reasonable" (AKA objective) expectation of privacy for them. The Constitution only protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure. One of the ways a search can be reasonable is if the item that was examined was "in plain view." I would suggest email fits that just as much as a postcard does.

"My emails are mine."
Unfortunately, if you check the fine print on your email provider's webpage, this might not even be true. And certainly it's not true of the copies of your emails that are automatically created whenever you send them.

"At which point they should be bound by law to delete the content."
As a matter of policy, I agree 100%. As a matter of "what does the Constitution require?" I have to disagree.

"There is no such thing as "abandoned" in cyberspace. Those emails are either mine, or they are to be deleted. Period."

No. You gave license to someone to copy your email in order to transmit it, and they did that, and now they have a copy of it. You can't electronically transfer data between servers that are only reachable by other intermediary servers without copies of it being made. Email depends on copying of data.

"The postman can yes, but he's delivering it, and the post card was specifically sent via a government service.  So, service providers may have some right to read an e-mail. "

Erm, a policeman who wants to read any postcards you send or receive can do so without a warrant.

"No, not the same.  You voluntarily sent your postcard via a government service.  You gave it to them.  Under your analogy, if I send a post card via bike courier or Federal Express, the government still has a right to read it while it is in transit.  They don't."

Erm, first off, yes the government could. I don't think FedEx is nearly as private as you think it is. For instance, see U.S. v. Young, 350 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2003). The government can x-ray your FedEx packages without a warrant, then use anything they see in the x-ray to get a warrant for further searches. Why? Because FedEx makes you sign a statement saying they can inspect your packages, which means that you had no expectation that your package wouldn't be inspected, which means the government can inspect it without a warrant. Rule of thumb: anything a private party could do without you crying foul, the government can do without a warrant. Which means yes, the government can read your postcards when they are out of your hands, regardless of where they find them or how you sent them. Just the same as it can read the outside of an envelope that you mail. It has nothing to do with the government "having a right" to read it. It's that you have no right to expect privacy, so anyone who wants to can read it -- including the government.

So back to the original topic, when you email you've given license to third parties to copy and retain the data being transmitted to the other person's mailbox. It follows that the government can copy and retain your emails without a warrant.

Moral of the story: Email is not secure, and email is not private.

95

@97: "a policeman who wants to read any postcards you send or receive can do so without a warrant."

No, he can't.  He would have to have a means of access to them either with a warrant, or see it in such a way that a warrant was unnecessary.  He can't simply show up at your door and demand that you hand over any and all postcards in your possession simply because he could have read them, had he been at the post office when they passed through.

"I don't think FedEx is nearly as private as you think it is. For instance, see U.S. v. Young, 350 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2003). The government can x-ray your FedEx packages without a warrant, then use anything they see in the x-ray to get a warrant for further searches."

Fine, they can x-ray the FedEx package I send with a postcard in it.  They would still need to get a warrant to open the package to view the postcard.  Good luck getting that "Yes, your honor, we have a highly suspicious piece of 4X6 paper inside a box..."

96 Ignorantia juris non excusat.

97

@99: "Ignorantia juris non excusat."

Unless you are a politician, banker, etc.  Then it pretty much is an excuse.  "Sorry, I didn't know I couldn't do that." 

98 Blog comments are still private, though, right? Because I've been screwing the au pair and my wife doesn't know.

99 Considering how political this Dept. of Justice is,  if I were a political opponent of the Democratic Party, I would want to make sure I don't have any email older than six months on any servers anywhere.

The DoJ could, without a warrant, obtain and peruse one's email just because they want to.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn at some point in the future that the Obama Administration's DoJ is the intelligence gathering arm of the DNC.

100 Well with my 17 email accounts, plus dozens if forums and blogs I'm keeping someone busy. Oh yeah go fuck yourself. I'm dropping off the grid. Have fun archiving my thoughts. See you in hell.

101

Part II which most don't know about.

Internet service providers, by Federal law, don't actualy DELETE anything... they can't.  They have to store it just 'in case' it could be used as evidence sometime, somewhere.

Thus, ALL of your deleted emails, older than 6 months old, are fair game under the combination of current law.

Your ONLY dodge is if your email provider is NOT inside America.

So much for Land of the Free... when my Privacy is only ensured when I use foreign services???? How F'd up is that?

Oh... and your tweets and Instant messeges? Same thing... if you said it 6 months ago, the Government has access without any Warrant or notification.

102 On a semi-related note, all twitter entries are archived by the Library of Congress. Makes me giggle when someone sends a death threat to Walker or whoever, then deletes it and protects their tweets, thinking they're covered. Like we don't screen capture their idiocy anyway. Maybe I'm a big ol' conspiracy theorist, but hasn't anyone else heard of Projects Echelon and Carnivore? I know it got mentioned earlier in the thread. If the government isn't intercepting and recording something, a private company (Google) is.

103 "Your ONLY dodge is if your email provider is NOT inside America."

Nope.  Many EU countries require 1 year retention.  And there is one case that is even worse.

104 What I meant by "one year retention" is that the communications provider is required to retain traffic and logs, etc. for a year.  Even if you delete it, they still have a copy for a year.  Some countries require the government to get a copy of all communications as a matter of course.

105 www.hushmail.com

Secure email from Barry Ogabe and Janet Incompentano eyes.

106

Not truth I think.full lace wigs, lace front wigs  .

107 Treat email like a postcard. Don't put anything in an email that you wouldn't put on a postcard, it's that simple. If you want any level of privacy you have to use high level encryption and be sure the receiver knows how to securely handle encrypted communications, and won't leave it unsecured on their end. It's not difficult but it does require attention to detail and discipline. Most people don't need it and very few people have the discipline. You're screwed bitches!

108 All I can say is that I honestly believed that the government wasn't allowed to snoop in my email. I thought it was private.

Awww.  That's cute.  You thought you had some level of privacy.  heh.

109 Just like HITLER and STALIN,MAO, and CASTRO would do the typical response of all tyrant and typical of BIG BROTHER