An FBI investigation manual updated last year, obtained by the ACLU, says it's possible to warrantlessly obtain Americans' e-mail "without running afoul" of the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI believe they don't need a search warrant to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files, internal documents reveal. Government documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and provided to CNET show a split over electronic privacy rights within the Obama administration, with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators privately insisting they're not legally required to obtain search warrants for e-mail. The IRS, on the other hand, publicly said last month that it would abandon a controversial policy that claimed it could get warrantless access to e-mail correspondence. The U.S. attorney for Manhattan circulated internal instructions, for instance, saying a subpoena -- a piece of paper signed by a prosecutor, not a judge -- is sufficient to obtain nearly "all records from an ISP." And the U.S. attorney in Houston recently obtained the "contents of stored communications" from an unnamed Internet service provider without securing a warrant signed by a judge first. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583395-38/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/
If I remember right, much of the need for warrants stem from whether the suspect has an expectation of privacy. Email and private chats seem to pretty clearly have an expectation of privacy in my view. I don't think this will go well for the DOJ.
What's the big difference legally between a warrant and a subpoena where one is infringing on privacy rights, and the other is not, exactly?
Warrant is signed by a judge. The DA has to convince the judge to sign. They don't sign willy-nilly. Subpoena is signed by the DA.
Obviously, a search warrant also allows the police to dig through your stuff, read letter, etc. Search warrants are much more invasive and you can be served one with zero notice.
A search warrant must be specific. For example: Let's say a drug dealer has all his drugs in his back yard in a shed. If the warrant only says they can search his house; they can only look inside the house. They cannot search the back yard. Also, if the dealer has a safe; he can refuse to open that safe until they get a warrant to look specifically in the safe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/u...p-web-users.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1& WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according to officials familiar with the deliberations. The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders. That proposal, however, bogged down amid concerns by other agencies, like the Commerce Department, about quashing Silicon Valley innovation.
^^^ As someone who's been in the software industry for 40 years, I cannot fathom the govt. forcing me to add subroutines to my programs to allow them to spy on my customers. Besides, it's much better to have the government encourage us all to fink on our neighbors instead.
Denny, I'm surprised you want to limit government bullying inside the U.S., but not outside. If the government had good intentions, there would be real supervision of their powers. 1) In the area of massively spying on its citizens just to stop a couple of terrorists per year, there would be understandable behavioral rules known to all citizens, and auditors checking the spies to enforce compliance. One might object that secrets would be exposed. Well, they could disclose audit results to the public 5 years after the findings, by which time the perpetrating spies would be finishing their prison terms. 2) In the area of the legal system, nothing need be secret. Just throw the prosecutors into prison now.
I voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004. He'd have brought the troops home right away. Anyone who voted for Kerry voted for a guy who promised more troops and bigger military. We know what Bush gave us. I think you don't read much if you think I want the govt. to bully anyone outside the US.
You sure appear to desire a projection of American power. Why don't you post against wars, instead of defending them (or deflecting blame to the follower party that inherits them)?
You have me confused with someone else. I supported taking out Saddam. It was the only way I could see to give the country back to its people. We made him, we had to take him out. W declared victory, and we did win at that point. Then was the time to bring the troops home. I had no interest in any kind of protracted adventure in Afghanistan. I still don't know what "victory" looks like there. Putting the hurt on the Taliban for backing the 9/11 attacks was fine, and we did that within the first few days. If it were up to me, we'd do as little as we had to - obligated to - to make things right where we did project American power. Then we'd bring all our troops home.
You count the angels on the head of a pin (make distinctions that are too fine), yet in the last 24 hours said something (I forgot what) against Kerry, who was famous for such incomprehensible distinctions. I voted against war, then for the war, then against the war, etc. As I've said in the past, your excuse of wanting a short limited war was undoable, and everyone except you knew that. You can't customize the big attack you wanted into a little short 1-month or whatever war. It is hypocritical because it's impossible. Besides, if you really believe what you say you do, you'd criticize Bush for not doing it your way. Instead you spend all your time protecting him.
I make no fine distinction. Kerry made a campaign pledge to increase the size of the military, not to bring the troops home and end the occupation immediately. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/04/nation/na-kerry4 Kerry said he would increase military ranks by 40,000 troops, in contrast to what he called a "hollow" increase of 30,000 that the Bush administration has achieved by extending tours, delaying retirements and preventing enlisted personnel from leaving the military. Didn't GHW Bush send troops into Panama where they arrested Noriega, and then left? No occupation. Regime change. So much for you theory about short limited war being undoable. As for W, I didn't vote for him either time. I am happy he took out Saddam. I also think it was a shame he was the one who did it because of how it was handled.
Biometrics! Hidden in the immigration bill. It's like looking at yourself in a mirror. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/05/immigration-reform-dossiers/
