> Government cannot just demand access - it must follow a due
> process, which is a very legitimate way of proceeding under most
> circumstances.
That's an overestimate; many (most?) of the requests receive very little consideration or oversight.
Not sure if you followed this link in the zdnet story:
http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
It's a good read, and contains gems like:
However, while there are many ways the government can
monitor an individual, very few of these methods require
an intercept order.
And:
In addition to the fact that they are far easier to obtain,
pen register orders are also not included in the annual US
courts wiretap report. Not to fear though -- a 1999 law
requires that the Attorney General compile annual statistics
regarding DOJ's use of pen register orders, which he must
submit to Congress.
Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has ignored this
law since 2004 -- when five years worth of reports were
provided to Congress in the form of a single document dump
covering 1999-2003. Since that one submission, both Congress
and the American people have been kept completely in the dark
regarding the Federal government's extensive use of pen registers.
And finally, with reference to your claim that government surveillance is different from corporate:
The reporting requirements for intercepts and pen registers
only apply to the surveillance of live communications. However,
communications or customer records that are in storage by third
parties, such as email messages, photos or other files maintained
in the cloud by services like Google, Microsoft, Yahoo Facebook
and MySpace are routinely disclosed to law enforcement, and there
is no legal requirement that statistics on these kinds of requests
be compiled or published.
You're also completely ignoring wholesale collection methods (like Carnivore) that have been in place as far back as 2000. No "due process" is required there ...
/jordan