[SudoNick]

Have you asked your attorney why he adds that warning, and asked whether attorney-client privilege is waived if email messages and documents are exchanged over an SMTP system which allows the messages to be read by providers and intermediaries?

I asked once. The answer was: no, it is not waived and no warning need be attached. Applicable law revolves around intent and that is largely determined by who you choose for recipients. There is some allowance for typos and mistakes when addressing or sending. The warning is just to remind people of appropriate conduct, encourage them to report incorrectly addressed messages, and make the intent extra clear.

[rayiner]

The law of client/attorney privilege and the Constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable search have distinct bases and are governed by different law. Attorney/client communication focuses on the whole communication, while 4th amendment focuses on the specific piece of evidence. So if you for example gave your client some advice relayed through your secretaries, you could invoke the privilege if they were questioned. However, if you gave your secretary a note to pass to your client, and she kept a copy, you cannot invoke the 4th amendment.

[3825]

What if I FedEx a letter and a FedEx employee opens it and keeps a copy of it? (Replace FedEx with USPS if it makes a difference)

[rayiner]

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to private carriers like FedEx or UPS. The expectation of privacy only extends to First Class USPS mail, under the consideration that extra protections are needed given that the USPS is an organ of the federal government and that USPS workers are bound by the 4th amendment just as any other agent of the government (and unlike private mail carriers!)

[nknighthb]

> There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to private carriers like FedEx or UPS.

Absent an expectation of privacy, the government is entitled to search whatever and whenever it pleases. Are you suggesting there is court precedent establishing the government does not require a warrant to search a box being delivered by UPS?

[3825]

With UPS' consent, I'd guess.

[nknighthb]

That is your own speculation, not established precedent, and I would argue UPS is now acting as an agent of the government anyway.

So, again, what actual precedent exists to support rayiner's contention?

[3825]

Thank you. I didn't know of this distinction. I poked around a little and found something at the EFF website[1].

Now my next question is can someone force the third party to give up the information without a warrant? I know they most likely will just comply. However, just for completeness, can a company like FedEx say that they require a warrant before opening packages?

[1] https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy