Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use

[Sage of Seattle]

What would you expect, laws that make the Web and Cell phone coversations inviolate? Don't we have enough government intrusion into our lives already? All we need are more laws.

The laws in this case, I believe, would be to limit government, not "we, the people," which is perfectly fine in my view.

 

[leadcounsel]

Once again our silly and pointless war on victimless crimes in our "free society" erodes a fundamental right even further.

The war on drugs is the single worst emeny to our rights to arms and privacy and counsel and freedom.

We'll never be free until we end this nonsense.

 

[Art Eatman]

I doubt that this relates to the War on Drugs as it does to the knowledge that Al Qaida, et al, are very active with the Internet's websites and with emails.

Art

 

[MechAg94]

To make a point, the front page on this site shows that I am logged in and actively viewing the site. Someone could then do a search for all of my posts and all of the guns I have mentioned owning before. There is nothing private about that.

 

[pcosmar]

Art Eatman said,

I doubt that this relates to the War on Drugs as it does to the knowledge that Al Qaida, et al, are very active with the Internet's websites and with emails.

I doubt that it does much but cost money, with no effect on terrorism.
I visit sites in Iraq, Iran, Israel, Kurdistan,etc.I look for news and information. I have looked at Islamic web sites to gain knowledge.
I surf the world. This tells them exactly nothing and is more Government waste. The sooner we can get these folks out of office the better.

 

[joab]

I've never had any expectation of "privacy" on the Web, nor while on my cell phone.

I would have no expectation of safe passage while walking through Compton
Doesn't mean I'm not entitled to it

 

[GigaBuist]

Okay, here's what I don't get:

When an external agency (goverment) asks for a "pen register" showing where you've been calling they're able to provide it because phone companies have a business reason for keeping such records. They need that information for their own billing purposes.

ISPs? Not so much. I've never seen an ISP bill me with a log showing every IP connection I've made. Heck, I've worked as the sole tech for an ISP before and that information was never recorded. It's pointless. The only thing that's of use to them is a log showing the amount of traffic you're pushing and pulling.

I just don't see how the government could get the data required to find out what you're connecting to unless the ISP starts collecting it after the goverment has become suspicious of you.

Seems like a world of difference to me.

 

[Flyboy]

So....what's different in either the pen register case (in which case the messenger is Ma Bell)

Might it have something to do with the fact that Ma Bell is (...was, is...) a government-regulated monopoly? In exchange for permission to do much of what they do, the Baby Bells undoubtedly made "special arrangements" with the government. I can't believe that those arrangements didn't involve special access for the government. See also some of the recent allegations concerning AT&T giving full access to their network and data to the government.

 

[nemoaz]

Hmmm, interesting. I don't like the ruling, and think there's a firm basis for it being wrong on 4A grounds.

Well, the law is and always has been (generally) that things that leave your home or put in a third parties hands are not subject to a warrant. Most of the provisions regarding these things, ie bank records, are protected by statutory provisions, not the constitution.

BTW, warrants in the 17th and 18th century were very rare and generally only necessary for "unreasonable" searches as they understood it at the time. You probably wouldn't like it much if US LEO's today had the powers they did in the 17th or 18th centuries.

 

[goings_51]

I don't think a post on a website has any expectation of privacy, but an e-mail should. You need a warrant to put a recording device in a room because people do not expect others to be listening. The same should apply to the internet and email.

Allowing them to track where you surf is a sticky issue. I don't see it as a good thing for our rights.

 

[pcosmar]

I wonder about how the would track the traffic. I surf, from site to site following links etc.
Has anyone here used "etherape"?
The number of connections at a single link can be dozens.
Using a torrent can be hundreds. PTP connections?
How are they going to make sense of millions of people each making multiple connections all around the world?
It seems a huge waste of resources for little gain.
Oh yeah, it's the government, and it's not their money.

 

[ilbob]

In this case, I believe a court order is still required for government agents to access internet meta-data (headers, accessed URL's, etc.). I'm not sure how this court order differs from an actual warrant, but I assume it's more likely to be rubber-stamped by a judge.

Warrants in general are a rubber stamp situation to begin with. It couldn't get much more rubber stampish.

 

[Xenia]

I realize the ruling is likely related to anti terrorism but to be very honest, I have already seen the effectiveness of warrents for monitoring of Web use in nailing sexual predators and for that purpose I applaud it. I have heard about it catching child porn rings. But closer to home and personal experience it has caught budding but not yet sexual predators who after the fact was greatful they were stopped.

I honestly did think that the FBI/CIA was able to monitor us if we are in their suspected terrorist radar scope without a warrent already though.