Skip to main content

View Diary: Google: Want Privacy? Don't Use Gmail! (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There's a difference. (0+ / 0-)

    In the case you're describing, there was a legally executed search warrant that was specific to one user, limited in scope and entered into the public record.  The NSA program fails on all of these counts.  When agents of the law knock on your door (or kick it in) and hand you a warrant saying they can search your house and garage for explosives and bomb-making materials it's a whole different thing than them kicking in your door, along with all your neighbors' doors and the doors of anybody you might know and anybody they know and anybody they know looking for "you know... suspicious stuff".  Which is precisely what the feds can do with a FISA warrant.

    The problem is not the distinction between Google and Lavabit, it's the distinction between warrants that fall within the 4th Amendment and those that don't.

    I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

    by mojo11 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:06:27 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So "recipients" of warrants (0+ / 0-)

      get to decide if they are the kind they want to obey or if they are the kind they get to decide it okay to ignore?

      Is that how it works?  I want to make sure I understand.

      If there is a warrant, duly presented, signed by a sitting judge can ANYONE get to decide "No.  I don't agree with how that court approves warrants." or "That judge was wrong to sign that one therefore I am entitled to refuse to comply."  Can you and I do that if we like or just companies like ISPs?  Does it work with arrest warrants or property seizures too or just search warrants?  Or just FISA search warrants?

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:02:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not what I mean (0+ / 0-)

        Lavabit was not immune from compliance with either warrant, but the one cited in the original comment was a reasonable one that nobody would have a complaint about.  That one was executed in the way that search warrants were intended in the Constitution.  FISA warrants go well beyond those constraints, and pretty much do away with the process.  There doesn't need to be probable cause demonstrated, just "suspicious stuff" and they don't need to specify what is being searched for.  they're basically a blanket permission to do whatever the hell you feel like just because suspicion.  Lavabit wouldn't be able to refuse to comply, other than to do what they did (which probably didn't stop that search from happening anyway, but there won't be any more, because there's nothing to search).

        If Google were served a "legal" warrant, nobody would say boo when they complied with it, because that's how the process is supposed to work.  And they tell you up front that if there's a legal subpoena, etc served they'll hand over your information to the authorities.  The outrage is in the abuse of the 4th Amendment, which falls on the government, not the ISP.  So getting outraged over the warrant served on Lavabit or using it as an example of government overreach doesn't hold, because it's NOT an overreach.

        Not sure I'm getting this from brain to text very effectively... must be the muscle relaxers or something.

        I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

        by mojo11 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:12:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site