I wonder what would happen to people like myself, who are both the ISP and the "account holder"? It would appear this is fertile grounds for throwing a rock in the gears. On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Ted Smith wrote:

Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:13:47 -0400 From: Ted Smith To: Cypherpunks list Subject: [Fwd: [p2p-research] Slashdot | Federal Judge Says E-mail Not Protected By 4th Amendment]

-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Paul D. Fernhout To: Peer-To-Peer Research List Subject: [p2p-research] Slashdot | Federal Judge Says E-mail Not Protected By 4th Amendment Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:53:53 -0400

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/29/2257209/Federal-Judge-Says-E-mail-Not... Protected-By-4th-Amendment """ In the case In re United States, Judge Mosman ruled that there is no constitutional requirement of notice to the account holder because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to e-mails under the third-party doctrine. 'When a person uses the Internet, the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all. The user is generally accessing the Internet with a network account and computer storage owned by an ISP like Comcast or NetZero. All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an ISP. When we send an e-mail or instant message from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our computer to computers owned by a third party, the ISP, before being delivered to the intended recipient. Thus, b privateb information is actually being held by third-party private companies." """ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Mosman

From: http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/district-judge-concludes-e-mail-not-protected-b... -fourth-amendment/ "The case is In re United States, b F.Supp.2d b-, 2009 WL 3416240 (D.Or. 2009), by District Judge Mosman. The issue in the case is whether the government must notify a person when the government obtains a search warrant to access the contents of the personbs e-mail account. Judge Mosman concludes that Rule 41 and 18 U.S.C. 2703(a) require the notice to be served on the ISP, not the account holder, as a statutory matter. He then rules that there is no constitutional requirement of notice to the account holder because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the e-mails under the third-party doctrine. Herebs the relevant analysis: ..."

I don't really know what this means for peer-to-peer in general, given email is a peer-to-peer technology.

--Paul Fernhout http://www.pdfernhout.net/ http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/

_______________________________________________ p2presearch mailing list p2presearch@listcultures.org http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin_at_mfn.org 0xF6D40CF5 0xpgp_key_mgmt_is_broken-dont_bother "Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty." Joseph Pulitzer 1907 Speech