Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Electronic Freedom Foundation - Deep Links
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: Electronic Freedom Foundation - Deep LinksGovernment Backs Down in Yahoo! Email Privacy Case, Avoids Court Ruling on Important Digital Civil Liberties Issue
By bankston
In the face of stiff resistance from Yahoo! and a coalition of privacy groups, Internet companies and industry coalitions led by EFF, the U.S. government today backed down from its request that a federal magistrate judge in Denver compel Yahoo! to turn over the contents of a Yahoo! email user's email account without the government first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause.
The EFF-led coalition filed an amicus brief this Tuesday in support of Yahoo!'s opposition to the government's motion, agreeing with Yahoo! that the government's warrantless seizure of an email account would violate both federal privacy law and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. In response, the Government today filed a brief claiming that it no longer had an investigative need for the demanded emails and withdrawing the government's motion.
While this is a great victory for that Yahoo! subscriber, it's disappointing to those of us who wanted a clear ruling on the legality and constitutionality of the government's overreaching demand. Such demands are apparently a routine law enforcement technique. If the government withdraws its demand whenever an objection is raised by an email provider or a friend of the court like EFF, however, it robs the courts of the ability to issue opinions on whether the government's warrantless email surveillance practices are legal.
This is not the first time the government has evaded court rulings in this area. Most notably, although many federal magistrate judges and district courts have ruled that the government may not conduct real-time cellphone tracking without a warrant, the government has never appealed any of those decisions to a Circuit Court of Appeals, thereby preventing the appeals courts from ruling on the issue. Similarly, a federal magistrate judge in New York, Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger, has twice invited EFF to brief the court on applications by the government to obtain private electronic communications without a warrant, and in each case, the government withdrew its application rather than risk a ruling against it (in one case the government went so far as to file a brief anticipating EFF's opposition before finally dropping the case).
The government's unwillingness to face off with EFF in these cases is certainly flattering, and it speaks volumes about their view of whether what they are doing is actually legal. But the right answer here is to let the courts decide, not to have the government turn tail and run whenever someone seeks real judicial review of their positions.
So while it is a big victory for the Yahoo! customer, today's capitulation by the government is a profound disappointment to those of us seeking to clarify and strengthen the legal protections for your private data. Court rulings are needed to keep the government within its legal bounds when it comes to warrantless communications and location surveillance. Next time, the government should stay in the fight, because EFF isn't going to back down when it comes to protecting your privacy.
Full post as published by Electronic Freedom Foundation - Deep Links on April 16, 2010 (boomark / email).
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
The Paulson Toxic Mortgage Debt Security Act: The Biggest Government Bailout of All Time
Legislative Proprosal for Treasury Authority to Purchase Mortgage-related Assets
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
The Civil Rights Act of 1871
Law bans discrimination enacted under color of state law
imbee Data Collection
Industrious Kid, Inc. pays $130,000 civil penalty for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
Katrina Victims See Justice, Ruling Paves the Way for Class Actions
Katrina Victims See Justice Ruling Paves the Way for Class Actions
Apple Inc.
allegedly maintained an illegal monopoly on the digital music market.
Wal-Mart
Avoids Criminal Charges over Clerk's Death
Qui Tam Whistleblower - Government Fraud - Qui Tam Lawsuit
Qui Tam Whistleblower alleging fraud against the government reported by an individual acting as a government whistleblower.
Mr. Brown Instant Coffee
Possible Melamine Contamination Prompts Canadian Agency to Issue Warning

Fourth Amendment news--"Yahoo, Feds Battle Over E-Mail Privacy"
B.C. Civil Liberties Association on C-61
US Supreme Court refuses to hear privacy case
From Privacy to Censorship - Activists Have Their Hands Full
Does Federal Law Allow the Government to Obtain Opened E-mail With Less than a Warrant
Ohio Supreme Court Decision on Cell Phone Searches Protects Privacy and Due Process








