More Patriot Act follies: email surveillance approved

Amazing how it just gets worse and worse. Now precedence has been set so that any evidence of wrongdoing is not needed for the government to ask for the identity of someone via their email. This means that what you thought was anonymous emailing or your private correspondence is now subject to identity checking without any evidence.

Though the language may be clumsy, Hogan said, the Patriot Act’s amendments authorize that type of easily obtainable surveillance of e-mail. All that’s required, he said, is that prosecutors claim the surveillance could conceivably be “relevant” to an investigation.

Great. Thank you District Judge Thomas Hogan. So the claim of being relevant is enough? I guess eventually, we’ll just claim that one party is in the way of the other party, so we’ll just make a “relevant” investigation. Hah. And you wonder where you draw the line.
Via ZDnet

  • Glenn C Jordan Jr

    Assume this is some type of civil liberties loophole, if it is used completely within the context of fighting the war, what is its worst possible abuse?
    Interesting read. Good post.

  • Glenn C Jordan Jr

    Assume this is some type of civil liberties loophole, if it is used completely within the context of fighting the war, what is its worst possible abuse?
    Interesting read. Good post.

  • The problem here is that the “war on terrorism” doesn’t take sides. So that means that since terror is a generic topic, the government has a right to tie ANYONE into that.
    Thus, worst case scenario: You, me, anyone else could be under email surveillance based on “possible contact” with terrorism. That sentence alone can should make it relevant. The slippery slope is pretty slick when it comes to politics.
    Best case scenario: We don’t have to worry about it. But when in politics has there been anyone looking out for the people’s best interest?

  • darkmoon

    The problem here is that the “war on terrorism” doesn’t take sides. So that means that since terror is a generic topic, the government has a right to tie ANYONE into that.
    Thus, worst case scenario: You, me, anyone else could be under email surveillance based on “possible contact” with terrorism. That sentence alone can should make it relevant. The slippery slope is pretty slick when it comes to politics.
    Best case scenario: We don’t have to worry about it. But when in politics has there been anyone looking out for the people’s best interest?