the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

It's nice you think we still live in a Republic.
Although i do agree w/ your Constitutional stance, it doesn't apply here as it was not a Governor agency that hacked these accounts.

Also she was a goverment employee that should have had oversight to where many of these atrocities should not have even occurred.

This was a private citizen, that went around all of the Stone Walling.
The information released only proves what many already know. For many, this isn't new information, for others a wake up call.

vernon

I don't think there is any privacy when you get on the net everyone knows if its in the net its fair game.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

There are a few problems with your post. From the top.... your emails are not private for several reasons, and I will explain.... Second, your interpretation of the First Amendment is odd and incorrect. Your thoughts on the 3d Amendment is incorrect as well as the 5th.

Shall we begin.

Emails are not private, in fact emails are the least private mode of correspondence..... just about as private as post cards. Phone calls, correspondence in sealed envelopes sent through the US Mail are considered private and law enforcement need warrants to obtain them.... not true with emails..... Your home computer is considered private property, but not the electronic information contained on that computer, such as photos downloaded from the net and emails that have been sent or received. Computers you use at work are considered the property of the business.... and that includes all data on that computer, emails, spreadsheets, passwords, word documents.... everything belongs to the company and if you work for the government.... it belongs to them. This extends to tablets and blackberries... if furnished by the company or government... regardless of the physical location of that device.

Now you are saying.... why....right? There is not just one copy of your emails, they are stored in multiple locations: on the sender's computer, your Internet Service Provider's (ISP) server, and on the receiver's computer. Deleting an email from your inbox doesn't mean there aren't multiple other copies still out there. Emails are also vastly easier for employers and law enforcement to access than phone records. Finally, due to their digital nature, they can be stored for very long periods of time.

Email privacy is derived from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is governed by the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. Unfortunately, given the open nature of email mentioned above (passing through several computers and stored at multiple locations), the expectation of privacy is less for email, especially email at work, than for other forms of communication.

Emails are also governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Patriot Act. Although the ECPA originally set up protections (such as a warrant requirement) to protect email, those protections have been weakened in many instances by the Patriot Act. Even where the protections remain under the ECPA, emails lose their status as a protected communication in 180 days, which means a warrant is no longer necessary and your emails can be accessed by a simple subpoena.

Now.... let us talk about the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment does not protect your religious privacy...... it forbids Congress from establishing a state religion and guarantees your right to or not to worship G*d. This amendment protects your right of freedom of speech..... however, the Supreme Court has defined this right and has set limitations on this right. It provided freedom of press, meaning that you or the media can not be coerced into printing or not printing or on open airways to present the news as they see it... but does not relieve them from being sued for the contents of their offerings. You have a right to peaceably assemble, which does not protect you if you break local or state laws for impeding the use of highways, sidewalks and it does not entitle looting or violence of any form. And finally, this amendment guarantees your right to question the government and express your complaints to the government.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

The 3d Amendment...has nothing to do with privacy, but simply says that the government or military can not take over your home to house or board soldiers either in peacetime or war.... unless you give permission or your local government and laws have the prevision. And this would include the government declare Martial Law.

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

The 4th Amendment extends the right reasonable expectation of privacy.... now if your computer has private letters that has not been stored on the Cloud or emailed.... then yes, a court order would be required to obtain them..... however the operative word is "reasonable" .....

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 5th Amendment... again does not give you privacy. This one is jammed packed.... most often it is used to protect oneself from having to testify against themselves. And protects your ownership of private property from being taken and used by the public. Now it also says that if you are indicted by Grand Jury by the court for presentment, you must appear and present testimony.... if the testimony will be against yourself, you can claim protection....but, against others you are expected to show up and testify with the truth as you know it to be.


"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

To conclude, the hacker did break the law by using code or devices to break into emails. That law is 18 U.S.C. § 1029. This law concentrate on the creation, distribution and use of codes and devices that give hackers unauthorized access to computer systems. The language of the law only specifies using or creating such a device with the intent to defraud, so an accused hacker could argue he just used the devices to learn how security systems worked. And this law does not protect the use of data obtained by hacking. In other words, the code and means of hacking is illegal, but the distribution of the data is not covered unless it is intended for blackmail or committing fraud. Even if the identity of the hacker is discovered, it is highly unlikely they will ever be prosecuted.

This law is too long to quote, so here is the link.... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1029

bilordinary Loc: SW Washington

Don't ya know B.B. is watching emails!

JimMe

Actually, the 9th Amendment to the USA Constitution states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It addresses the entire Constitution... The 7 Articles as well as every Amendment... Not just the Bill of Rights... The Courts using the 9th Amendment as a source of the Privacy Rights of Citizens does not limit the 9th Amendment's scope to the Bill of Rights...

As far as the media's being guilty of hacking, that is wrong... The media has been given unsolicited hacked data by a 3rd party... They may be ethically wrong in publishing the data, but not Legally Wrong...

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Great point and I missed it in my reply... Many thanks!

pafret Loc: Northeast

You are stretching the guarantees and rights in each of those articles to include a concept of privacy. Nowhere in the Constitution or in any federal law is privacy guaranteed. That is an inference, weakly supported by a convoluted interpretation of the ninth amendment which says simply that if a right doesn't specifically appear in the3 amendments it doesn't mean that such a right doesn't exist.

The Supreme Court has essentially denied such privacy rights when they decided that the CVS Pharmacy Chain had the right to sell the list of customers and the pharmaceuticals they purchased to outside companies. Thus releasing the medical records of all clients since it is a simple matter to look at what drugs you buy and determine your illness.

Absent any specific law protecting privacy such assertions have never prevailed in courts.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

There is an interesting case sitting at the Supreme Court that has a bearing on reasonable expectation of privacy.... City of Ontario v. Quon. It deals with texting on an issued pager... Quon text messages went over alloted usage... supervisor obtained the texts and found messages to and from wife to husband with sexual content and further text to and from the employees mistress with sexual content. He was terminated. Quon maintains that he had a reasonable expectation to privacy. Lower court said no, appeal said yes. It is now in the Superior Court and when ruled on may give people more protection. In summation, this case will address the scope of a government employee’s Fourth Amendment rights in regards to electronic communications. Here, the Court will determine whether Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages sent over an employer-issued pager, whether the search was reasonable, and what Fourth Amendment protections, if any, extend to third parties who send text messages to a government-issued pager. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case may have implications for government agencies’ ability to promote efficiency by monitoring employee communications. It may also have ramifications for transparency in government organizations, as the availability of communications of government employees are at times sought by media and other government watchdog groups. This case may also signal how the Court is prepared to apply the Fourth Amendment to new mediums such as text messages, as well as how the Court prepares to address government regulation of employee communication on access devices that may be used both at work, as well as from the home..

mouset783 Loc: Oklahoma

Nobody is stopping you from praising the useless idiot. Please procede. You privacy argument is rediculous ergo NYT Trumps taxes.

Big Bass

If she hadn't deleted all those emails in the first place, this would not be an issue. All she has done is prove she is not qualified for the position.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Agreed and the other thing she did by deleting those emails.... she had and has something to hide...

Little Ball of Hate

It had to be something pretty bad, to defy a Congressional subpoena. Especially since she used an expensive procedure called bleach bit. She wanted to make damn sure no one would see them. That speaks volumes.

Big Bass

If she stuck with her official server she wouldn't get hacked. Her carelessness.

vernon

pafret Loc: Northeast

The problem here is that the Supremes will undoubtedly return a very narrow ruling affecting only government workers issued pagers and not address the wider issues. They usually decline to broaden any scope and that may be for the best since such expansion would constitute law making. We have all seen how well court imposed laws have worked.