Christopher
04-16-2010, 10:52 AM
I know I was thought paranoid because cell phones can be listened to.
So is this ok also??? just curious
Full Article titled "Google backs Yahoo in privacy fight with DOJ"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002423-38.html
Clip from Article...
The judge should "reject the government's attempted end-run around the Fourth Amendment and require it to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before searching and seizing e-mails without prior notice to the account holder," the coalition brief filed Tuesday says. The Bill of Rights' Fourth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/) prohibits unreasonable searches and, in general, has been interpreted to mean warrantless searches are unreasonable.
The legal push in Colorado federal court, and a parallel legislative effort in Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, is likely to put the coalition at odds with the Obama administration.
A few weeks ago, for instance, Justice Department prosecutors told (http://www.pgh-offroad.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html) a federal appeals court that Americans enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy in their mobile device's location and that no search warrant should be required to access location logs.
The U.S. Attorney's office in Colorado did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Update 8:15 p.m. PDT Tuesday: I've heard back from a Justice Department representative who says he'll be able to answer questions on Wednesday after he talks to the cybercrime section.
Update 9 a.m. PDT Wednesday: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted (http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/04/13) a statement on the case, with EFF attorney Kevin Bankston saying: "The government is trying to evade federal privacy law and the Constitution." Yahoo's brief (http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inreusaorder18/yahooresponse.pdf) is also worth noting. Like the coalition's filing, it argues that "users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their e-mails" and says the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a warrant to peruse stored messages. And it confirms that prosecutors want "all e-mail" in the targeted Yahoo Mail accounts, even if it's not relevant to the investigation or could include documents protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Update 9:30 a.m. PDT Wednesday: Yahoo has sent over a statement saying: "Yahoo values our trusted relationships with our users and works to protect their privacy while at the same time fulfilling our legal responsibilities. Yahoo's filing in this matter is a public document. Beyond what is contained in that document, Yahoo has no comment on the specifics of the case."
So is this ok also??? just curious
Full Article titled "Google backs Yahoo in privacy fight with DOJ"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002423-38.html
Clip from Article...
The judge should "reject the government's attempted end-run around the Fourth Amendment and require it to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before searching and seizing e-mails without prior notice to the account holder," the coalition brief filed Tuesday says. The Bill of Rights' Fourth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/) prohibits unreasonable searches and, in general, has been interpreted to mean warrantless searches are unreasonable.
The legal push in Colorado federal court, and a parallel legislative effort in Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, is likely to put the coalition at odds with the Obama administration.
A few weeks ago, for instance, Justice Department prosecutors told (http://www.pgh-offroad.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html) a federal appeals court that Americans enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy in their mobile device's location and that no search warrant should be required to access location logs.
The U.S. Attorney's office in Colorado did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Update 8:15 p.m. PDT Tuesday: I've heard back from a Justice Department representative who says he'll be able to answer questions on Wednesday after he talks to the cybercrime section.
Update 9 a.m. PDT Wednesday: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted (http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/04/13) a statement on the case, with EFF attorney Kevin Bankston saying: "The government is trying to evade federal privacy law and the Constitution." Yahoo's brief (http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inreusaorder18/yahooresponse.pdf) is also worth noting. Like the coalition's filing, it argues that "users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their e-mails" and says the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a warrant to peruse stored messages. And it confirms that prosecutors want "all e-mail" in the targeted Yahoo Mail accounts, even if it's not relevant to the investigation or could include documents protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Update 9:30 a.m. PDT Wednesday: Yahoo has sent over a statement saying: "Yahoo values our trusted relationships with our users and works to protect their privacy while at the same time fulfilling our legal responsibilities. Yahoo's filing in this matter is a public document. Beyond what is contained in that document, Yahoo has no comment on the specifics of the case."