Privacy of data, government survelliance, google transparency report

[LagunaH1]

Found this on CNN this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/13/tech/web/google-transparency-report/index.html?hpt=us_c2

I *think* there is a legal distinction between content (such as email) stored on a hosted system, and stored on one's personal system(s). If content is stored on a computer owned by an individual, or located in someone's home, the still requires a warrant to search and seize, this is apparently *not* the case otherwise.

I commend Google for releasing this report. I think it's time the "ancient" Electronic Communications Privacy Act from 1986 be modernized.

 

[Pappibri]

I wont store anything online other than pictures. I have flash drives and an external drive for that.. Yeah, the government thinks they are entitled to do whatever it is they wish.. Watch your guns, cause there going to try to take them someday soon. Hope that day does not come..

 

[abearden]

Problem is any data on Google's servers is considered Google's so all the government needs to do is ask nicely and Google rolls over. If Google was more interested in user privacy, they could tell the government to get a warrant for every request. Problem is, it threatens Google's government income stream and political influence if they force the government to go through the "hassle" of a warrant. It's strictly Google's policies. Personally, the law should be changed to require a warrant for a prosecutor/investigator to request information from anyone or to gather information on anyone. But, that will never happen.

 

[LagunaH1]

It's strictly Google's policies.

From what I read, there is a legal distinction made between data stored on personal property, and that which is stored on a hosting provider or in "remote" storage. There are also distinctions made between opened and unopened emails. Source: http://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/

Granted, I haven't read the ECPA in its entirety (I got a real headache after 2 sections) and I'm sure lots of things are left to interpretation but I do think opened gmail emails falls under the "Stored communications act" and as such do not require a warrant, but merely a subpoena.

 

[abearden]

It's possible it has changed legally, but Google has in the past (years ago) told them to get lost until they had a warrant.

 

[3Hummers]

Under the current administration laws are more blatantly ignored than any I can remember. The press gives them a pass and of course we all know that the attorney general is worthless.

 

[Hunner]

From what I read, there is a legal distinction made between data stored on personal property, and that which is stored on a hosting provider or in "remote" storage. There are also distinctions made between opened and unopened emails. Source: http://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/

Granted, I haven't read the ECPA in its entirety (I got a real headache after 2 sections) and I'm sure lots of things are left to interpretation but I do think opened gmail emails falls under the "Stored communications act" and as such do not require a warrant, but merely a subpoena.

Didn't "they" use the method of storing drafts in a different fictitious gmail account "they" both had access to so they were not opened?
Sounds like something the director of the CIA would have known was still not foolproof?
I smell a movie deal!

 

[LagunaH1]

Didn't "they" use the method of storing drafts in a different fictitious gmail account "they" both had access to so they were not opened?
Sounds like something the director of the CIA would have known was still not foolproof?
I smell a movie deal!

Huh? Who?

 

[Expendable]

Huh? Who?

I think he's talking about the probably being blackmailed not resigned CIA Director and his biographer

 

[LagunaH1]

I just read a news story that the parties involved used a shared gmail account to exchange messages. One would log in and write an email and save it as draft. The other would then log in and read the "draft" message. This way, everything was encrypted from end to end.

 

[Hunner]

I thought that was what I said? Maybe it did not come out that way?

 

[LagunaH1]

I thought that was what I said? Maybe it did not come out that way?

When I first read your post, I didn't know about how the general and his mistress had used gmail with a shared account, using draft emails etc etc

 

[alrock]

And those same articles indicated that the "draft email" trick has been used before and has failed before, like with the shoe bomber.

 

[LagunaH1]

Well, shoes aside, I don't think the discovery of this whole mess had anything to do with how they used gmail

 

[abearden]

If they were really worried, they'd run 4k PGP keys, text padding, and ascii armor via email. :thumbs: