| Warrants? Well hopefully these companies are not selling or giving away this information without a court approved warrant.
Why oh why do the Feds think that our rights and freedoms do not apply to the digital medium?
Just because there is no specific regulation or law, does not mean that our rights do not exist in the digital world.
--
Consumer Rights is more than just a suggestion. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by zalternate:Well hopefully these companies are not selling or giving away this information without a court approved warrant. Why would they be required to get a warrant? What makes your relationship with a business private? What prevents the government from talking to others about you?
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by zalternate:Well hopefully these companies are not selling or giving away this information without a court approved warrant. Why would they be required to get a warrant? What makes your relationship with a business private? What prevents the government from talking to others about you? Mark The real argument is does the average person have an expectation of privacy about certain things (like e-mail). I would say you do since your e-mail is password protected and companies tell you never to share your password.
If you can show the average perosn has an expectation of privacy then 4th amendment about illegal search/seisure applies. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by sameshtdd:The real argument is does the average person have an expectation of privacy about certain things (like e-mail). I would say you do since your e-mail is password protected and companies tell you never to share your password. If you can show the average perosn has an expectation of privacy then 4th amendment about illegal search/seisure applies. I understand what you mean. From my perspective, you are protected if you possess your email. The governmant can't access what you possess without a search warrant.
But, if you enter into a business relationship, then their holding of your email is, effectively, their property. The 4th amendment would apply to them.
If their agreement with you offers no guarantee of privacy (and even says they will share the info with their "partners," which can be government agencies) then you've essentially ceded your expectation of privacy. The provider has no 4th amendment right if their partner pays the specified price.
You mention that providers like Yahoo tell you not to share your password. But, is that to protect you? Or, is it to protect their servers from unauthorized access? From people who didn't agree to the ToS?
I'm definitely concerned with an issue that overlaps this one: the plethora of private databases containing information about you, and used for "background check" purposes. (Or, in the case of Lexus Nexus, the government is their largest customer.). It bothers me how there are so few controls on this -- and we believe we're doing ourselves a favor by preventing the government from maintaining a database (which could be controlled).
But, if someone does business with another entity, and agrees to a ToS which doesn't require the entity to treat customer info privately, it's hard to accept that they expected privacy.
That's why I don't mind that private databases have information. I probably granted dissemination when I did business with various services. But, I think it could be more centralized and giving me some rights over that information to ensure it's accurate, etc.
Mark |
|
| reply to zalternate
said by zalternate:Well hopefully these companies are not selling or giving away this information without a court approved warrant. Why oh why do the Feds think that our rights and freedoms do not apply to the digital medium? Just because there is no specific regulation or law, does not mean that our rights do not exist in the digital world. Search warrants are not required to get user data; you agree to it in Yahoo's terms of service. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | reply to zalternate
said by zalternate:Well hopefully these companies are not selling or giving away this information without a court approved warrant. Some things need warrants and some do not. As the Verizon PDF says, they need warrants to tap phone lines; turn over call records; and other things related to phone records.
But web posts; groups postings; etc are all public info not needing any warrants and are available based on the company's TOS.
Email seems a gray area; courts have ruled both ways regarding whether court action is required to obtain emails from an ISP.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| reply to amigo_boy
When I send you a letter in the post, there are federal protections against third parties being able to intercept it. The Post Office doesn't just say "oh, hey there Big Brother, This dude just sent a letter and it says ..xxxx " - not without Big Brother needing a warrant anyway. (They can get the addresses you send things to without a warrant, though)
The average person treats email as a digital version of snail-mail, with similar perceptions - including an expectation of protections which ought to be there.
The fact that they aren't is a problem.
»ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by DaveAnon :
When I send you a letter in the post, there are federal protections against third parties being able to intercept it.
I agree. But, like your relationship with a telco, it's modified by public law which creates statutory damages for treating your information in ways defined by that law.
Such statutory moderation of other business relationships don't exist. Maybe they should. But, they don't. For now, if you expect privacy of your email you should use your own local client and encrypt what you expect to be private.
If you don't want to be identified as the owner of an ID posting to forums, don't obtain one (or, use an anonymizing proxy).
Mark |
|
