IRS Documents Citizens Have "No Privacy Expectation" With Email
April 11, 2013 3:01 PM
comment(s) - last by
Circuit court says search is unconstitutional, but IRS ignores that ruling
It's tax time so the
U.S. Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) is likely in the minds (and fears) of many. The
IRS is also on the mind
American Civil Liberties Union
I. Big Brother is Watching Your Email
The ACLU is currently fighting a battle with the IRS over
warrantless email snooping
. The IRS is reportedly regularly going to internet service providers and demanding their customers’ older emails -- and it's often getting the information.
The debate starts with the
of the U.S.'s most important governing document, the Constitution, which states:
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.
[Image Source: EL Civics]
That's seemingly an open and shut statement -- the police can't investigate a citizen without a warrant. But in recent years the federal government -- including the IRS --
has been steadily
at due process
The IRS for much of last decade argued email was not Constitutionally protected.
[Image Source: CNN]
Back in 2009, the IRS was operating under the premise that there were no protections against email searches. That protocol was affirmed by the “
Search Warrant Handbook
” from the IRS Criminal Tax Division’s Office of Chief Counsel, a document that the ACLU obtained via a Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) of 1966 (
II. A Policy of Warrantless Surveillance
The 2009 IRS handbook suggests "the Fourth Amendment does not protect communications held in electronic storage, such as email messages stored on a server, because internet users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications."
A second document -- a 2010, a
by the IRS Office of Chief Counsel -- repeats this, stating that citizens have "no privacy expectation" when it comes to email and commenting, "[The] 4th Amendment Does Not Protect Emails Stored on Server."
Thus the IRS practiced a haphazard process of obtaining emails, only occasionally backing its demands with warrants (perhaps when it met with resistance from service firms).
The IRS claimed the Fourth Amendment didn't apply to email. [Image Source: Bloomberg]
The IRS policy was only slightly worse than the general government policy. Back in 2009, the general federal investigative policy -- based on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) (
) -- was that unopened emails less than 180 days old required a warrant, but emails
than 180 days, or opened emails did not require a warrant for federal agents to obtain.
Of course the Fourth Amendment seemingly gave a far more explicit and stringent requirement, regardless of the shortcomings of the ECPA, so it seemed inevitable that the issue would be put to the test. And it was.
III. Sixth Circuit Ruling Deals a Blow to Practice, But IRS Resists Change
In 2010, the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
decided a critical case on the topic of email privacy --
United States v. Warshak
In that case the Circuit Court -- which sets precedent for Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee -- decided that federal agents must obtain a warrant to obtain
email regardless of the age or open status, due to the Fourth Amendment protections.
The big questions after the Sixth Circuit decision was when it would be appealed and whether federal investigative agencies would comply with it until the issue was settled at the Supreme Court level. The ACLU requested information from the IRS, the
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice.
The IRS was the first to respond back. And its
made it clear that it was not necessarily abiding by the Sixth Circuit ruling and may
be snooping on email. The IRS instead switched to the previous precedent -- the 180 day ECPA protocol.
The IRS's manual still suggests warrantless email grabs are okay, despite a Federal Circuit Court ruling that they are unconstitutional. [Image Source: Something Finance]
reveal IRS legal counsels initially denied having heard of the Sixth Circuit opinion, and argued that the 180-day rule is current and universal. But in 2011 they advised that it "would not be sensible" to read emails without warrant. The agency lawyers warned that ISPs could fight the demands, citing the Sixth Circuit ruling, and that while the agency was confident it could win the information obtained would be "stale" by then.
However, the advisory was never made mandatory, so presumably some warrantless data requests occurred. Such a possibility is reinforced by the fact that this year's Internal Revenue Manual, available on the
still says that no warrant is required for emails older that 180 days old -- making no reference of the Sixth Circuit ruling or the internal discussion.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Abusive government
4/13/2013 10:40:20 AM
Why does the government make these claims? Easy, because nobody is willing to step up to the plate with a good lawyer by their side, and nail them before the Supreme Court for violating the Constitution. How many times since 2001 has the government been taken before the Court for violating the Constitution? Not many, if any at all. As long as the citizens are lax, or aren't willing to do anything about it, then don't expect the government to stop this any time soon. Does everyone have to lose every freedom they have before they step up to the plate? It's really beginning to look that way.
RE: Abusive government
4/14/2013 10:55:00 AM
The Supreme Court just ruled that it's Constitutional for the Government to require you to purchase a product, in this case health insurance. Basically handing the Federal Government broad mandate power over it's citizens in direct violation with the very essence of the Constitution.
So even if you GET your issue to the Supreme Court, they blow it half the time. Because the judges are activist's and pretty much vote down party lines.
There should be no such thing as a "Right wing" or "Left wing" Supreme Court justice. There should ONLY be strict Constitutionalists, because that's their damn job! Uphold the Constitution, not their ideology!
"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins
U.S Gov't: "Give Us Your Data, It's For Security"; Google: "Buzz Off!"
April 5, 2013, 3:33 PM
Obama's DOJ Tries to Sneak Around Supreme Court GPS Tracking Ruling, ACLU Upset
January 17, 2013, 2:08 PM
Too Large to Manage? 1.3M Cell Phone Snooping Demands Filed in 2011
July 9, 2012, 2:23 PM
Report: Obama Administration to Spy on Citizens Online to Fight "Terror"
September 27, 2010, 2:10 PM
Nosy IRS Employees Charged With Snooping on Tax Returns
May 14, 2008, 9:50 AM
Twitter Senior VP: "Diversity is Important, But We Can’t Lower the Bar"
November 9, 2015, 9:59 AM
CNN Resorts to Internet Censorship to Promote Clinton Over Senator Sanders
October 15, 2015, 2:47 PM
Breaking Bad: How to Crash Google's Chrome Browser With Just 8 Characters
September 23, 2015, 11:08 AM
Quick Note: Amazon UK Offers £10 Back on Any Order £50 or Over
August 3, 2015, 12:05 PM
Editorial: Reddit Allows Itself to be Hijacked as a Hate Platform For Racist Bigots
July 21, 2015, 6:32 PM
Mozilla and Facebook to Adobe: It's Time to Kill Flash
July 20, 2015, 6:30 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information