tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post1632303444941069436..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: Lack of Particularity in Email Search WarrantSusan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-82314791159114541712009-11-09T15:16:08.845-05:002009-11-09T15:16:08.845-05:00I do teach my students about it, I speak about it ...I do teach my students about it, I speak about it . . . and I wrote extensively about it on this blog:<br /><br />http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2008/07/warshak-6th-circuit-blinks.html<br /><br />I didn't do a post on the Oregon decision because as far as I'm concerned, it's old news. Reach the 2 Warshak posts . . . a some of my law review articles.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-74223183005019923832009-11-09T15:12:54.785-05:002009-11-09T15:12:54.785-05:00Recently, the EFF compared Cioffi with another rec...Recently, the EFF <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/new-york-court-scores-over-oregon-recent-email-pri" rel="nofollow">compared</a> <i>Cioffi</i> with another recently decided case, <i>In re: United States</i> (D.Ore.). That comparison is worth making. It leads to a simple takeaway:<br /><br />Stockbrokers win. Ordinary people lose.<br /><br />Look at what the courts are actually doing—strip away the fancy rhetoric.<br /><br />In one sense, I can't really fault the Oregon court's decision. 'Cause really, these days, you just don't have privacy in your email unless you protect it with end-to-end encryption. You need to be teaching your students that. Because your students will have an ethical obligation to protect client confidences. And they won't be able to do that without knowing how to encrypt their email.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com