Comment

Comment on DHS asks tech companies for names, email addresses and phone numbers of accounts that criticize ICE

You should know that any emails older than 180 days are considered ‘abandoned’ and now only require an administrative subpoena to access and not a judicial warrant?

Think your e-mails are protected by the 4th amendment? Sure, they are… but the definition of what ‘your e-mails’ is has been adjusted so the 4th amendment only effectively protects you for 6 months.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Vorticity@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Not that I disbelieve you but, source please?

source
- Hacksaw@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  andywibbels.com/privacy-email-cloud/
  
  Back when email was new, server storage was tiny and you downloaded your emails frequently. That’s when this law was passed.
  
  Nowadays with gmail etc… no one downloads their emails. They stay on the server forever, and government agencies are free to take them without a warrant.
  
  source
  - Vorticity@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    How have I never heard of this? In the digital age the 4th amendment really means nothing…
    
    source
- nirodhaavidya@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Seconded. If true, my paranoia will be justified and prove to be woefully insufficient.
  
  source
  - FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41733
    
    Section 2702 authorizes voluntary disclosure. Section 2703 speaks to the circumstances under which ECS and RCS providers may be required to disclose communications content and related records. Section 2703 distinguishes between recent communications and those that have been in electronic storage for more than 180 days. The section insists that government entities resort to a search warrant to compel providers to supply the content of wire or electronic communications held in electronic storage for less than 180 days. It permits them to use a warrant, subpoena, or a court order authorized in subsection 2703(d) to force content disclosure with respect to communications held for more than 180 days.
    
    A subsection 2703(d) court order may be issued by a federal magistrate or by a judge qualified to issue an order under Title III.220 It need not be issued in the district in which the provider is located.
    
    The person whose communication is disclosed is entitled to notice, unless the court authorizes delayed notification because contemporaneous notice might have an adverse impact. Government supervisory officials may certify the need for delayed notification in the case of a subpoena. Traditional exigent circumstances and a final general inconvenience justification form the grounds for delayed notification in either case:
    
    source