Secret Orders Target Email

[cory777]

Source: WSJ

The U.S. government has obtained a controversial type of secret court order to force Google Inc. and small Internet provider Sonic.net Inc. to turn over information from the email accounts of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Sonic said it fought the government's order and lost, and was forced to turn over information. Challenging the order was "rather expensive, but we felt it was the right thing to do," said Sonic's chief executive, Dane Jasper. The government's request included the email addresses of people Mr. Appelbaum corresponded with the past two years, but not the full emails.

Both Google and Sonic pressed for the right to inform Mr. Appelbaum of the secret court orders, according to people familiar with the investigation. Google declined to comment. Mr. Appelbaum, 28 years old, hasn't been charged with wrongdoing.

The court clashes in the WikiLeaks case provide a rare public window into the growing debate over a federal law that lets the government secretly obtain information from people's email and cellphones without a search warrant. Several court decisions have questioned whether the law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.





Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576613284007315072.html

---

Activist News http://activistnews.blogspot.com/

[msongs]

1. Obama administration making you go broke to defend yourself against it nt

[Angry Dragon]

2. The transparency promised only applies to people

of the human kind

I wonder why they do not apply this to the corrupt people corporations

[RKP5637]

3. If what one is doing benefits mankind, there is an abuse potential. If what one is doing

benefits corporate profits, then it is perfectly acceptable in USA, Inc., corruption is waived. And sociopathic behavior is a plus.

[EFerrari]

4. Invisible rec. n/t

[nineteen50]

5. Is it fascism yet?

[Demeter]

6. Half past, by my watch

[msanthrope]

12. Not to inject facts here, but this was a law passed in 1986. Patrick Leahy wrote it.

Is Patrick Leahy the harbinger of fascism???

Shall we all just read news articles from the Murdoch-owned WSJ and bash Obama today??? Seems to be the agenda.

[No Elephants]

7. Fourth Amendment? Snort. Sooooo last millenium. TERRA! TERRA!

[Supersedeas]

10. change you can believe in

[msanthrope]

14. You realize that Patrick Leahy wrote this law? In 1986? I don't want to halt the Obama-bashing,

but unless he has a time machine, I don't think he voted for it.

[Supersedeas]

15. You do realized that between now and 1986--there has been plenty of time to change

Status quo we can believe in

[msanthrope]

16. Yes. Where's the Congress been for 25 years? You do know that they change the laws, right?

I don't know if you noticed, but the President is busy doing his job. He can't do Congress's, too.

[msanthrope]

13. Um... This law was passed last millennium. 1986. By Patrick Leahy.

I don't want to suggest that one should read a Murdoch-owned paper with an approach towards recognizing critical facts, because that might interfere with other agendas....

[The Northerner]

8. K&R n/t

[Tesha]

9. It's okay. It's all to stop terrorism and surely Obama would only use this power against...

...really, really bad people.

At least that's what I read here in the last few weeks.

Tesha

[msanthrope]

11. I am loving the comments on this thread about a 1986 law sponsored by Patrick Leahy.

That's right folks--1986 law, sponsored by Patrick Leahy.

But, since it's Obama-bashing time, let's read a post in the Murdoch-owned WSJ and apply no critical reasoning skills, whatsoever.

It must be Obama's fault that the Congress hasn't updated this law in 25 years. MUST BE!!!!

[gratuitous]

17. Well look at that!

Apparently the Department of Justice knows how to go about investigating things after all. At least, things they care about, like who might have exposed wrongdoing in the Executive Department. Actual wrongdoing in the Executive Department? Well, investigating that would just be lookin' backwards to the past, not lookin' forward to the future. And since that's where we're going to spend all our time, it just wouldn't be hopey-changey to dredge up all that past muck to see if there were any, you know, crimes committed.