Access to customer information from Internet infrastructure providers should follow due process of law.
In some instances, law enforcement agencies have a legitimate need to access personal online data—but government access to data must be preceded by due process procedures set out in the 4th Amendment in regards to search and seizure.
United States law is clear on the privacy of phone calls and other non-digital communications: government officials and agencies need a search warrant based on probable cause to gain access. However, such protections don’t extend to email.
A warrant is needed for messages located on the computer of a sender or receiver, but messages older than 180 days can be obtained from the servers of Internet infrastructure providers and other third parties with only a subpoena or court order. A court order can be based on a standard lower than probable cause, and many agencies can issue themselves a subpoena without an outside judge.
Recent Updates On Privacy
i2Coalition Releases Statement on DreamHost Warrant
This warrant is one example of a significant, and disturbing, trend, of sweeping government requests to Internet Infrastructure providers for all manner of data related to their services.
The i2Coalition Joins Tech leaders In Supporting ECPA Modernization Act of 2017
The i2Coalition has joined a group of tech industry leaders in supporting the ECPA Modernization Act of 2017, introduced by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
The Open Internet Order Is Still The Way Forward (UPDATED WITH FILED FCC NPRM COMMENTS)
Walking back the Open Internet order is not the correct course of action to create a more competitive, consumer-friendly Internet.
Lawmakers Must Fix Cross Border Access to Data
Currently, there are no clear, predictable, or implementable ways for companies to comply with routine requests for data.
i2Coalition Joins 24 Tech Leaders In Pressing For Surveillance Reform
The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2Coalition) has signed onto and sent a letter regarding reform priorities for Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“Hacking Back” a Recipe for Digital Arms Race
So-called “hacking back”—using active countermeasures to respond to malicious hacking, generally leveraging methods similar to those favored by attackers themselves—is highly controversial.