[macrael]

My understanding that part of the arguments center around the idea of a reasonable expectation of privacy. You're not protected by the fourth amendment for public communications, for example.

While most people probably do expect that their emails are private, it's not necessarily a fair assumption. Email is by default completely unencrypted. (even if you are communicating with your mail server sercurly, it is likely that when your message is sent to a different server it is unencrypted.) You can make the argument that such open communication does not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy when anyone on the network could read it so easily. (Let alone people using open wifi to connect to an unsecured mail server where anyone on the network could read anything -- firesheep)

This is further complicated by the fact that we most of us hand over our emails to be stored by third parties (a very different practice from entrusting the postal service with a sealed envelope) who don't necessarily have the same legal protection to maintain the privacy of your communication as you do.

I'm glad that the courts see email as protected, but I recognize that there are legal arguments to be made for the opposite case.

[dedward]

Most phone calls back in the day were analog, and there was no reasonable expectation that anyone with a pair of alligator clips and a speaker couldn't listen in to their calls - but privacy laws still applied.

Same deal here.

[MichaelApproved]

True, there are arguments but i would say they're pretty weak.

Though emails are stored by third parties, those parties state that they won't read your email. That makes it reasonable to assume that they won't read your information and further reasonable that your communication will remain private due to those statements.

Yes email travels unencrypted through mail servers but it's not a requirement that someone read the message to pass it though the server. Someone has to overtly snoop on the message to break the users privacy. Much like a phone call passes through telco offices and someone can snoop on a call by taping two copper wires.

Contrast that with sending a telegram to someone over the phone. In order for the message to go out you have to tell the 3rd party what it says so they can type it for you.

A letter that's sealed can still be read fairly easily. If not by breaking the seal with steam then simply by someone holding it up to a light. The seal is a very weak protection mechanism.

Edit: flow of statements.

[sigzero]

Encryption has nothing to do with whether I have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[alexqgb]

"While most people probably do expect that their emails are private..." fairly well sums up the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. So, you know, full stop.

I'm just astonished that it's taken more than 30 years to reach this decision, and a least at decade of very widespread use.

[billybob]

To me, this sounds a lot like "you didn't bother to lock the door, so obviously it's legal for me to come in," or even "you used a lock that's easily picked" with the same conclusion.

If I'm a non-technical person, I send an email, I address it to a single person, expressing my expectation that only that person will read it. Just because someone CAN violate that privacy doesn't mean they should be allowed to. Just like when I have a private conversation in my house with the door closed, I'm expressing an expectation of privacy. Just because someone CAN bounce laser beams off my windows, read the vibrations, and reconstruct the sound waves doesn't give them the right to do so at will.