Ruling gives cops de facto right to snoop your e-mail

By a prisoner in Oregon

In one of the first cases interpreting wiretapping laws in 
the context of recent electronic communications technology, 
ITAL Fraser v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. END, a federal 
court has come down against the supposed "right of the 
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."(1) 
ITAL Fraser END held that neither the Wiretap Act, 18 USC 
2510 et seq., or the Stored Communications Act, 18 USC 2701 
et seq., protects a sender's or receiver's e-mail, post 
transmission, in electronic storage.(2) If you are the 
sender of e-mail, you are protected against governmental 
intrusion before and during transmission. If you are the 
receiver of e-mail, you are protected during transmission 
only. The sender's retained e-mail data, post transmission, 
and the receiver's storage of e-mail data, post receipt, are 
not protected from government intrusion. In simple terms, 
once an e-mail or other electronic transmission of data has 
arrived at the intended recipient's address, the data is 
ripe for government picking. See also ITAL Konop v Hawaiian 
Airlines Inc. END, 236 F3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2001). This ruling 
is splitting hairs, since once a file has been received and 
stored, it can be recovered, even if "deleted." The only 
sure way to protect against retrieval of sensitive data is 
physical destruction of the hard drive. MIM recommends that 
electronic information such real names and addresses be 
encrypted using the PGP program.(3)

Notes: 1. U.$. Constitution, Amendment IV, 
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.ht
ml. 2. Criminal Law Reporter. 3. Available at 
http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html.