Politics and Religion

Why this such a shock?
anonymousfun 6 Reviews 447 reads
posted

Simply. criminal activities are not protected by any law in any country in the free world east or west. Non-democratic countries without a constitution and codified law may protect criminals for their own purpose such as North Korea, China and in many lawless African Countries.

When one decides to enter the criminal world, they loose many rights under law.

Judge Just Gave Prosecutors Access To Someone's Gmail
Reuters 07/18/14 04:00 PM ET

By Joseph Ax

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge in New York has granted prosecutors access to a Gmail user's emails as part of a criminal probe, a decision that could fan the debate over how aggressively the government may pursue data if doing so may invade people's privacy.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein said Friday he had authorized a warrant to be served on Google Inc for the emails of an unnamed individual who is the target of a money laundering investigation.

Gorenstein said his decision ran counter to several other judges' rulings in similar cases that sweeping warrants give the government improper access to too many emails, not just relevant ones.

But he said the law lets investigators review broad swaths of documents to decide which are covered by warrants.

Google did not respond to a request for comment.

The ruling came three months after U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis in New York said prosecutors can force Microsoft Corp to hand over a customer's email stored in an Ireland data center.

Microsoft has appealed, in what is seen as the first challenge by a company to a warrant seeking data stored overseas.

Companies including Verizon Communications Inc, AT&T Inc, Cisco Systems Inc and Apple Inc have filed briefs in support of Microsoft, as has the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group. A hearing is set for July 31 before U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York.

The government's ability to seize personal information has grown more contentious since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked secret documents in June 2013 to media outlets outlining the agency's massive data collection programs.

In June, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled police generally need a warrant to search an arrested suspect's cellphone, citing privacy concerns.

Gorenstein's ruling joined a public debate playing out among several magistrate judges, who typically handle warrant requests. It is unusual to issue lengthy opinions on such matters particularly when, as in Gorenstein's case, the judge approves the application.

In April, John Facciola, a magistrate in Washington, D.C., rejected a warrant for the Apple email account of a defense contractor as part of a kickback investigation, one of several similar opinions he has authored recently.

Last year, a Kansas magistrate denied warrant applications for emails and records at Google, Verizon, Yahoo! Inc, Microsoft unit Skype and GoDaddy in a stolen computer equipment case.

Both judges said the warrants were overly broad.

On the other hand, several U.S. appeals courts have rejected motions to suppress such searches, Gorenstein said.

Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, applauded Gorenstein for explaining his reasoning in writing, though he said he disagreed with the analysis.

"The more voices and opinions we can add to the discussion, the better," he said in an email

Simply. criminal activities are not protected by any law in any country in the free world east or west. Non-democratic countries without a constitution and codified law may protect criminals for their own purpose such as North Korea, China and in many lawless African Countries.

When one decides to enter the criminal world, they loose many rights under law.

for in fact we do have a constitution in the US. I point you to the first, fourth and ninth amendments. I also point out that these rights are inalienable... meaning they apply to everyone, everywhere under our system of laws.  

As for losing rights? That is saved for AFTER conviction.  

Just a thought: perhaps rogue judges who attempt to legislate from the bench should be subject to forfeiture of their own rights?  

Posted By: anonymousfun
Simply. criminal activities are not protected by any law in any country in the free world east or west. Non-democratic countries without a constitution and codified law may protect criminals for their own purpose such as North Korea, China and in many lawless African Countries.  
   
 When one decides to enter the criminal world, they loose many rights under law.

Law enforcement needs a court order which makes it inalienable.  

Look up what inalienable means.  
 

Posted By: MasterZen
for in fact we do have a constitution in the US. I point you to the first, fourth and ninth amendments. I also point out that these rights are inalienable... meaning they apply to everyone, everywhere under our system of laws.  
   
 As for losing rights? That is saved for AFTER conviction.  
   
 Just a thought: perhaps rogue judges who attempt to legislate from the bench should be subject to forfeiture of their own rights?  
   
Posted By: anonymousfun
Simply. criminal activities are not protected by any law in any country in the free world east or west. Non-democratic countries without a constitution and codified law may protect criminals for their own purpose such as North Korea, China and in many lawless African Countries.  
     
  When one decides to enter the criminal world, they loose many rights under law.

in·al·ien·a·ble
adjective: inalienable

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
"freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"

synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct; untransferable, nontransferable, nonnegotiable; indefeasible  

"that principle is an essential, inalienable part of having ownership"  

Yes, LE can obtain warrants. They can and do investigate innocent people and obtain warrants against them. We pay this price, make this sacrifice to protect ourselves and others from real criminals. The issue is the balance between this sacrifice of our rights, and the protection we actually receive. If we do not fight to maintain that balance and protect our rights (and yes, even the rights of criminals), then we BECOME China or North Korea - regardless of the words written on that piece of paper we call our Constitution. "Inalienable" is what we fight to make it mean.

The magistrate issuing the court order in this case acknowledged the legal debate in his written decision; there is no foregone conclusion as you suggested. Similar decisions have been overturned and others are in contest - as, apparently is this one. Throw in the labyrinth of international laws... This will be debated for years to come.

we have lost a lot of rights thought to be inalienable a long time ago, and local law enforcement encroaches on them more every day.  Marcy does some of the best NSA analysis on the planet, and Spenser Ackerman and Glenn Greenwald have said this many times.  Her blog would be boring if you really feel like the NSA's alienation of your rights doesn't matter or that you can't do a whole lot about a FISA court that's a rubber stamp but she's very good and a lot of the hard work she does is very interesting.

http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/07/19/eo-12333-threatens-our-democracy/#more-43682

Marcy is at www.emptywheel.net

If you want an a prime example of rogue judges legislating from the bench look to the Hobby Lobby Five Guys and you'll find them

"""If you want an a prime example of rogue judges legislating from the bench look to the Hobby Lobby Five Guys and you'll find them. """""

Actually, given MZ's dictionary definition, it was the Hobby Lobby 4 Rogue Libtards who needed the muzzle. Thank God for the sensibility of the 5 Wisemen. Only the most radical mangling  of the Constitution could find the Federal government having the right to force closely held business to fund abortions if they deemed it a violation of their religious beliefs. THAT is the radical idea and thankfully it was shot down.

 
Posted 7/21/2014 at 6:23:49 AM
6 of 7
MasterZen
Reviews: 10
Send Mail to MasterZen
Inalienable:
in·al·ien·a·ble
adjective: inalienable
 
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
"freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"

so long as he has not been convicted.      

       Your notion that constitutional protections do not apply when criminal activity is involved is misplaced when we are talking about the Fourth. I suspect what you are thinking about is the First Amendment which, as a general proposition, does not protect speech that is criminal. That’s why they can slap the cuffs on you as soon as you offer that undercover officer money for sex- the First Amendment does not protect you. But, if they want to search you before you get to the room, the Fourth Amendment says “no” – not without a warrant, even though your arrest is minutes away.

If a prosecutor can get a search warrant to search your house and take anything relevant to the criminal probe, how is that different from searching all your e-mails, and taking whatever is relevant.

I suppose the government should discard immediately anything not relevant (like e-mails to your mistress).

....people regularly used aliases. That was the best protection to your privacy that you could ever hope for with the internet. What's absurd is that these days a lot of people are moving away from using aliases and using their legal names. Talk about stupid.  

Here's a simple test to see if your privacy might be violated. Google your legal name. If you find anything, then you're doing it wrong.

How is that named pronounced?  

Posted By: MissCallieYork
 
   
 A Judge Just Gave Prosecutors Access To Someone's Gmail  
 Reuters 07/18/14 04:00 PM ET  
   
 By Joseph Ax  
   
 NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge in New York has granted prosecutors access to a Gmail user's emails as part of a criminal probe, a decision that could fan the debate over how aggressively the government may pursue data if doing so may invade people's privacy.  
   
 U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein said Friday he had authorized a warrant to be served on Google Inc for the emails of an unnamed individual who is the target of a money laundering investigation.  
   
 Gorenstein said his decision ran counter to several other judges' rulings in similar cases that sweeping warrants give the government improper access to too many emails, not just relevant ones.  
   
 But he said the law lets investigators review broad swaths of documents to decide which are covered by warrants.  
   
 Google did not respond to a request for comment.  
   
 The ruling came three months after U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis in New York said prosecutors can force Microsoft Corp to hand over a customer's email stored in an Ireland data center.  
   
 Microsoft has appealed, in what is seen as the first challenge by a company to a warrant seeking data stored overseas.  
   
 Companies including Verizon Communications Inc, AT&T Inc, Cisco Systems Inc and Apple Inc have filed briefs in support of Microsoft, as has the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group. A hearing is set for July 31 before U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York.  
   
 The government's ability to seize personal information has grown more contentious since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked secret documents in June 2013 to media outlets outlining the agency's massive data collection programs.  
   
 In June, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled police generally need a warrant to search an arrested suspect's cellphone, citing privacy concerns.  
   
 Gorenstein's ruling joined a public debate playing out among several magistrate judges, who typically handle warrant requests. It is unusual to issue lengthy opinions on such matters particularly when, as in Gorenstein's case, the judge approves the application.  
   
 In April, John Facciola, a magistrate in Washington, D.C., rejected a warrant for the Apple email account of a defense contractor as part of a kickback investigation, one of several similar opinions he has authored recently.  
   
 Last year, a Kansas magistrate denied warrant applications for emails and records at Google, Verizon, Yahoo! Inc, Microsoft unit Skype and GoDaddy in a stolen computer equipment case.  
   
 Both judges said the warrants were overly broad.  
   
 On the other hand, several U.S. appeals courts have rejected motions to suppress such searches, Gorenstein said.  
   
 Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, applauded Gorenstein for explaining his reasoning in writing, though he said he disagreed with the analysis.  
   
 "The more voices and opinions we can add to the discussion, the better," he said in an email.  
   
 

Register Now!