Hacker News Reader

> There has never, ever been any expectation set that internet email is private.

Of course there has.

Only if your expectation is that mailing your thoughts on what amounts to a digital postcard that passes through dozens of hands before it arrives to the destination is private.

What I meant was that most people assume it is secure. I mean only a few % at most has any clue how email works. I suspect most of my colleagues who has been working as developers for decades don't know that email may pass through dozens of hands. Of course if you know how it works you know its not secure, but very few people knows how it works.

There has never, ever been any expectation set that internet email is private

Most normal people believe, intuitively, that email is private. You need to enter a username and password to send it, and you need to do the same at the other end to read it. Prima facie private, like physical mail.

Sure, you may believe the corporation providing your email service could look at your text, but a delivery company could do the same thing to your physical mail; it's just harder (but not impossible) to read physical mail without evidence of tampering.

WRT legal definitions, everything is a bit woolier. Case law sets precedent, and precedent can be based on circumstances in the past that were different than today. People using email used to be more technical, more aware of how insecure the whole thing actually is without a lot of effort. And service providers have a vested interest in disclaiming legal liability for breach of privacy; they'd much rather the public believe things are private, but not have any legal expectation of privacy. That way, they get to have their cake and eat it.

> There has never, ever been any expectation set that internet email is private.

When I send an email to somebody, I do expect that no human other than the recipient will read it, and that automated processes do not attempt to divulge meaning from its contents past that required for advertising (and that data is used for no reason other than advertising).

I expect that it might be read by the police with a warrant, as with anything else. I also expect that any post I send might be read by the police with a warrant - resealing an envelope is actually easy, and worst case scenario, they could simply use another envelope and copy the addresses and stamps, and I'd be none the wiser.

The technical ability to read my email has little/nothing to do with my expectation of privacy. Technically, someone could read all my mail with ease (it gets delivered to my apartment's hallway where anybody could pick it up), but I still expect that people will not do that. They could also read RF emissions from my apartment to figure out what I'm typing just now, and IIRC that's a violation of privacy.

I get it, it's 2015 and paper mail feels old hat. So waving away and dismissing concerns about the vulnerability of email feels like the right thing.

Do you affirmatively know that every email that you've ever sent isn't an account managed by a third party (like an employer) whom the recipient has ceded (or shares) control of their mailbox to?

Any employer can trivially read email, and many do so routinely. Most people allow for the sharing of devices in the household... So the spouse and kids can probably access the computer pretty trivially. That's two trivial examples that doesn't involve spy stuff or conspiracy theory.

You cannot access postal mail without a warrant or physically stealing the mail. Once received, you can physically destroy or secure it.

> Do you affirmatively know that every email that you've ever sent isn't an account managed by a third party (like an employer) whom the recipient has ceded (or shares) control of their mailbox to?

They could also send my post to them off to a processor for whatever reason. When I give my personal details to my ISP, they could sell them to advertisers. I expect that they will not, and feel violated when they do.

> Any employer can trivially read email, and many do so routinely.

If I'm sending an email to a UK employee, they in fact cannot legally do so in the general case - doubly so if it's a personal email.

> So waving away and dismissing concerns about the vulnerability of email feels like the right thing.

No, but there's a point to be made that just because something is possible and easy does not mean it should be legal or even right, nor that people should expect it to happen. If it were something I really wanted kept secret, I'd encrypt it - but most things I email are, while not things I would necessarily want public, not life-destroyingly secret either.

I don't expect or want to be tracked everywhere I go in public either, but I don't wear a mask to ensure I can't be. On the other hand, perhaps I might want to do so in some circumstances because the stakes are higher.

But here's the thing. We're talking about a legal viewpoint called a "reasonable expectation". And unfortunately, if we did live in a time where many people believed in the flat earth theory, then yeah, they would be a reasonable person.

There will be a time when future generations laugh at our current popular scientific misconceptions, but until then, that counts as reasonable belief. We just don't have the benefit of retrospection to know which things are crazy ahead of time.

Also, I do believe that email should be private, but that is a separate discussion.

Actually, we're not.

The original legal question is about wiretapping. Previous posters asserted that people think email is technically secure. My assertion is that someone with passing knowledge of the subject does not believe that to be true.