IRS Says It Will Change Its Policy On Looking At Emails Without A Warrant... At Some Point

from the good-idea,-though-a-bit-late dept

Tue, Apr 23rd 2013 8:39am — Mike Masnick

You may recall a couple weeks ago the discovery that the IRS believed that it did not need a warrant to view emails over 180 days old. That got a fair bit of attention, and recently, Senator Wyden asked the IRS about this. And, almost immediately, the IRS folded, kind of. In response to Wyden's question about dropping the policy, the IRS's acting commissioner, Steven Miller, said that he "intends" to drop the policy... though he wouldn't give a date on when he'd drop the policy. Senator Wyden asks him to commit to a 30 day deadline to drop the policy, and Miller says he'll try his best and suggests he should be able to drop the policy by then, but does not commit to it. Also, he seems to indicate that the IRS has not used this ability (to the "best of my knowledge") -- and he also says that the IRS has not and cannot seek private info from Twitter and Facebook, but that it will use public info from those services. Of course, it makes you wonder why they had this policy in the first place. And, further, it seems ridiculous that it took until the info became public and seemed embarrassing that they decided to drop it -- but, at least, in the end, they're moving away from the practice, at some point.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: irs, ron wyden

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 8:46am

The IRS
Theirs

They want to tax all internet transactions as well: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/senate-passes-online-sales-tax-by-74-20-vote/

Time to starve the beast by bartering and using alternative currency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 11:09am
  
  Re: The IRS
  I am all for that ! Just as I am also all for seeing the Majority of the Government taken out to the Public and Tarred & Feathered..........just like the days of old.The Current Government is out of control and destroying this Nation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:03am

Does anybody know where the IRS is getting those emails "to look at"? Who exactly is showing them? Or do they have their own snoopfeed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  The 180 day stipulation is reference to the ECPA
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act
  
  >For instance, email that is stored on a third party's server for more than 180 days is considered by the law to be abandoned, and all that is required to obtain the content of the emails by a law enforcement agency, is a written statement certifying that the information is relevant to an investigation, with absolutely no judicial review required whatsoever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anders Nielsen (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    So, does that mean that anything in a archive cabinet is considered abandoned, and not because you want to preserve your information? Because then they will get into some really issues.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:43am

Snooping for tax purposes is a matter of national security! I feel safer already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:44am

Only a government agency...
We have a policy that it is ok for us to do something.
We do not actually do it because...well...just because.
Unfortunately, even though we do not engage in this behavior, we cannot commit to not doing it anymore within 30 days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:45am

While I dont thing any part of the government should be able to view any private emails without a warrent, public Data is public data. If IRS wants to snoop around in PUBLIC twitter and facebook pages I generaly dont care. Though it is probably a waste of time in most cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:49am

In other news, pigs are reporting they are not seeking the ability to fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 12:58pm

Mike: On what basis are you claiming that Ora's claim is wrong? Because it's not at all clear that a warrant is necessary for the government to require disclosure of emails by a service provider. Certainly one is not always required. Why do you think otherwise? (And note, I'm not asking why you think warrants should be required but rather, why you think the la,w as it currently stands, requires this.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 1:00pm

"IRS's claim", not "Ora's"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 1:27pm

So hands up for anyone who things that when he said he'll look into getting rid of that policy what he really meant was 'I'll ignore you and hope you don't ask about it again, but should you do so I'll again give you vague, non-committal answers'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]