The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Tue Nov 26, 2024 12:22 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:23 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 55988.html

Quote:
The idea of IRS agents poking through your email account might sound at the very least creepy, and maybe unconstitutional. But the IRS does have a legal leg to stand on: the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 allows government agencies to in many cases obtain emails older than 180 days without a warrant.

That's why an internal 2009 IRS document claimed that "the government may obtain the contents of electronic communication that has been in storage for more than 180 days” without a warrant.

Another 2009 file, the IRS Criminal Tax Division's "Search Warrant Handbook," showed that the division's general counsel believed "the Fourth Amendment does not protect communications held in electronic storage, such as email messages stored on a server, because internet users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

In December 2010 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that just because your email goes through a third-party service provider doesn't mean you lose that expectation of privacy. It said federal and local law enforcers would need a warrant to read through the contents of email.


http://drudgegae.iavian.net/r?hop=http% ... -a-warrant

Quote:
But in 2010, a federal appeals court ruled that police violated a man's constitutional rights when they read his emails without a warrant.

Despite the court decision, U.S. v. Warshak, the IRS kept its email search policy unchanged in a March 2011 update to its employee manual, according to the ACLU.

In an October 2011 memo obtained by the ACLU, an IRS attorney explained that the Warshak decision only applies in the Sixth Circuit, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.


Since when has that been a valid interpretation of US Common Law?

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:18 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Since there is no Federal common law. A supreme court case is needed to prevent this nonsense nationwide.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:43 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Except Warshak was a federal case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak

Man that dude was a douchebag. The 6th Circuit overturned the SCA as unconstitutional, which is what the IRS is claiming as their ability to go after emails.

A federal court declared the law, but the IRS says that it was only the 6th circuit, and only valid in those areas.

Case law doesn't exactly work like that.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:58 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Unfortunately it does, because another case could be brought in another district and circuit and decided differently. The same thing applies to us. Certain rules are different in AZ and TX because they fall under different circuits and no SC case was ever decided. Its rare that it comes up, but it can.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:13 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Yup district court rulings only affect downstream within that district.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group