Skip to main content

Ellen Nakashima has a blockbuster article in the Washington Post about how the

Justice Department has dropped its long-standing objection to proposed changes that would require law enforcement to get a warrant before obtaining e-mail from service providers, regardless of how old an e-mail is or whether it has been read.
This is a huge civil liberties victory, but one that may be illusory because so many other devices in the government's secrecy toolkit can skirt it: non-public (or even acknowledged) OLC memos, National Security Letters, "secret interpretations" of Section 215 of the Patriot Act...

Elana Tyrangiel, acting assistant attorney general for DOJ's Office of Legal Policy testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee about what is a major policy shift in surveillance.

The 180-Day Rule

Currently, law enforcement must obtain a warrant to gain access to e-mail that is 180-days-old or less if it has not been opened. But e-mails more than 6-months-old are fair game. Prosecutors can subpoena them. The Justice Department now says "there is no principled basis" to treat e-mail younger than 180 days differently than older e-mail.

Opened vs. Unopened E-mail

Currently, law enforcement can subpoena any e-mail that has been opened--no matter what its age. The Justice Department shift would now require a warrant regardless of whether e-mail has been opened or read.

What's the significance?

This could make easier congressional efforts to amend the outdated Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). Technology has outpaced ECPA, resulting in conflicting court decisions and, more importantly, a rubric under which the vast amount of personal information generated by today's digital communication services are not adequately protected.

This also means that the Justice Department is in effect adopting the 6th Circuit's 2010 ruling that requires a warrant for stored e-mail. (Google, Yahoo and other commercial e-mail providers have been using, indeed clinging to, this standard, so it will be comforting that they will not be in legal jeopardy for doing so.)

Why does this not solve the Fourth Amendment problem?

This development raises as many questions as it answers.

Is there a secret Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo interpreting the Department's relenting on e-mail rules?

How does this square with the plain language of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to obtain records of citizens' activities being held by a third party? How does it square with the "secret interpretation" of this section, which is apparently broader than the already expansive language, but that no one knows or can contest?

What impact does this have on National Security Letters (NSL), which are demand letters, not subpoenas? The government has a propensity for invoking the magic words "national security" for just about every controversial thing it does. NSL's have been a popular tool with which the government can obtain individuals' records and data from Internet Service Providers (who are are barred by a gag order provision from notifying the customer, or anyone.)

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site