Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House
by devindotcom on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @08:14PM
(#11585700)
No notification needed (just like you wouldn't tell someone you were tapping their phone) - though the HR669 writers wanted to include a clause that would make that required too. It got stripped out in committee.
Self-hosted stuff is an interesting question. You might be able to plead the fifth, but I really have no idea.
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House
by deadowl on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @08:18PM
(#11585722)
If you host your own private server, from what I recall reading (and looks consistent with a cursory Google search), a warrant is required to review your emails.
Edit: looks like it only applies to in-home servers, not hosted ones.
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House
by lucaspiller on Thursday April 28, 2016 @01:43AM
(#11586746)
Host the mail server on DO then download and delete it (heh, a use for POP!) from that to a server in your house.
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House
by icebraining on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:36AM
(#11587497)
You can also configure it to encrypt incoming mail: https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_E...
Does a search warrant imply that the person being searched will be notified? I know that a court has to approve the request, but wanted to confirm if it means that the person under suspicion is informed. The way the article contrasts this new law to the current ECPA seems to suggest this is the case.
Additionally, the article mentions requests made to service providers. What if I host my own server? Is it just a case of the law agency making the request to my hosting company, or are they required to contact me to get the information?