<div>Hi Jeffrey,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am posting before reading the reference materials, blush, because I saw your post on the way going out but wanted to respond to your own observations. But I will read the materials and get back as others likely will with feedback.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I was at a Federal trial here last week where it was just about all email as evidence. A wrote, B wrote, A responded, etc... with lots of apparent intent to capture admissions. What happened to sworn affidavits?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Used to be email was by definition casual and not binding. Right? Wrong? Neither? Both?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Warm regards, LDMF.<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com">jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">All,<br><br> As an perhaps important FYI... FWIW this seems to be a rather shocking<br>rueling even given the narrowness of same as most users use third party<br>
providers and as such their Email is therefore not protected under the<br>forth amendment in the opinion of this judge. I personally believe<br>he is mistaken on the grounds that a user of such a service has or<br>should have a reasonable expectation of PII in the use of their<br>
account. This goes directly to governance concerns and perhaps<br>others would care to share their opinions???<br><br>See:<br><br>In the case In re United States, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Mosman" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Mosman</a><br>
Judge Mosman ruled that there is <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/district-judge-concludes-e-mail-not-protected-by-fourth-amendment/no" target="_blank">http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/district-judge-concludes-e-mail-not-protected-by-fourth-amendment/no</a> constitutional requirement of<br>
notice to the account holder because the Fourth Amendment does not apply<br>to e-mails under the third-party doctrine. 'When a person uses the Internet,<br>the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or<br>
she is not truly acting in private space at all. The user is generally<br>accessing the Internet with a network account and computer storage owned<br>by an ISP like Comcast or NetZero. All materials stored online, whether<br>
they are e-mails or remotely stored documents, are physically stored on<br>servers owned by an ISP. When we send an e-mail or instant message from<br>the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the message travels<br>
from our computer to computers owned by a third party, the ISP, before<br>being delivered to the intended recipient. Thus 'private' information is<br>actually being held by third-party private companies."" Updated 2:50 GMT<br>
by timothy: Orin Kerr, on whose blog post of yesterday this story was<br>founded, has issued an <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/important" target="_blank">http://volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/important</a> correction. He writes, at the above-linked Volokh Conspiracy, "In the<br>
course of re-reading the opinion to post it, I recognized that I was<br>misreading a key part of the opinion. As I read it now, Judge Mosman<br>does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.<br>
Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected<br>(see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context<br>negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers."<br>
<br>Regards,<br><br>Jeffrey A. Williams<br>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)<br>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<br> Abraham Lincoln<br><br>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<br>
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<br><br>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<br>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<br>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<br>
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<br>===============================================================<br>Updated 1/26/04<br>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of<br>
Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<br>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail <a href="mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com">jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com</a><br>Phone: 214-244-4827<br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>
- - -<br>With warm regards,<br>LDMF.<br>Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff<br>914 769 3652<br>law / computing / humanities:<br>Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*;<br>Member, Board, Officer - Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.;<br>
World Education Fellowship;<br>Member Committees on disability, aging, health, values, development;<br>National Disability Party (NDP); International Disability Caucus;<br>Persons with Pain Intl.;<br>ICT multiple decades; <br>
Other affiliations on Request.<br><br>n.b.:<br>- The *Respectful Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask about leadership interning).<br>- Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN (Gellermann et al).<br>
<br>