Released on: November 8, 2007, 12:52 am

Press Release Author: No email privacy rights under Constitution, US gov claims

Industry: Financial

Press Release Summary: On October 8, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati granted the government\'s request for a full-panel
hearing in United States v. Warshak case centering on the right of privacy for
stored electronic communications. At issue is whether the procedure whereby the
government can subpoena stored copies of your email - similar to the way they could
simply subpoena any physical mail sitting on your desk - is unconstitutionally
broad.

Press Release Body: This appears to be more than a mere argument in support of the
constitutionality of a Congressional email privacy and access scheme. It represents
what may be the fundamental governmental position on Constitutional email and
electronic privacy - that there isn\'t any. What is important in this case is not the
ultimate resolution of that narrow issue, but the position that the United States
government is taking on the entire issue of electronic privacy. That position, if
accepted, may mean that the government can read anybody\'s email at any time without
a warrant.
What is Privacy?

In a seminal case (Katz v. United States in 1963) the US Supreme Court, over the
strenuous objections of the US government, upheld the right of the user of a
payphone to claim a right to privacy in the contents of those communications. The
Court held that the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in your \"persons, house,
places and effects\" against unreasonable searches and seizures protected people, not
just places. Thus, to determine whether you had a right against unreasonable seizure
- a kind of privacy right - the court adopted a two-pronged test: did you think what
you were doing was private and is society willing to accept your belief as
objectively reasonable?

The method you use to communicate can effect both your subjective expectation of
privacy and society\'s willingness to consider that expectation as \"reasonable.\"
Shouting a \"private\" conversation into a megaphone at Times Square would neither be
subjectively nor objectively reasonable, if you wanted the conversation to be
confidential. \"Broadcasting\" the conversation over the radio is likewise
unreasonable

Web Site: http://

Contact Details: Athens, Greece