Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

[jimnyc]

I guess I go back to encrypting my emails with 512 bit software!


A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

[fj1200]

I guess I go back to encrypting my emails with 512 bit software!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

I wonder how those techy youngsters who like their privacy and stuff will appreciate this? Doesn't matter, they just voted it in; sucks to be them huh?

Fortunately it won't go anywhere IMO.

[aboutime]

This shouldn't be new news to anyone here. The Govt. has had the unrestricted ability..without warrants, to do whatever they want since the Patriot Act was renewed by Obama.

The only people who need to fear LOSING THEIR PRIVACY...according to the Constitution are....ALL OF US who call ourselves American citizens.

Otherwise. Consider the HUGE numbers of Email's sent in this nation every hour, day, week, and month.

The Government DOES NOT HAVE the ability to READ every Email message as some would like to think.

They do have the ability, and capacity to use KEYWORDS that create RED FLAGS.

In other words. If you have something to hide, or have done something illegal.

You have two choices. Either be very STUPID, or use your head, and don't break the law.

And REMEMBER THIS: "Those who sacrifice FREEDOM for security, deserve NEITHER."

[gabosaurus]

Doesn't the Patriot Act already allow the feds to read our e-mail? Not to mention listening to our phone calls.

If you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about...

[aboutime]

Doesn't the Patriot Act already allow the feds to read our e-mail? Not to mention listening to our phone calls.

If you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about...


Gabby. If you had bothered to read the very first line I wrote in the previous post. You would have had your answer. But instead. You pulled another JOE BIDEN.

[Thunderknuckles]

Doesn't the Patriot Act already allow the feds to read our e-mail? Not to mention listening to our phone calls.

If you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about...
At what point do the words of Bert Rand sink into the skulls of those who believe they have nothing to worry about:

"People who think of government as the institution to entrust with enough power to right all the world's wrongs seem to never consider that they must thereby give it enough power to do wrong to all the world's rights. In fact, they seem NEVER to consider what the founders always thought was obvious: that the 'good guys' will NOT always be in charge!"

[aboutime]

Doesn't the Patriot Act already allow the feds to read our e-mail? Not to mention listening to our phone calls.

If you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about...


Gabby. If what you said above is true. What ARE you hiding that makes you worry so much? Giving up ANY AMERICAN'S Freedom for Security, eventually takes away both.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I looked at the linked piece, and the amendment document attached says 'warrant' all over it. I'm a little confused.



MEANS .—The means described in this sub-
11
section are—
12
‘‘(1) without prior notice to the subscriber or
13
customer, a warrant issued using the procedures de-
14
scribed in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
15
by a court of competent jurisdiction; and
16
‘‘(2) with prior notice to the subscriber or cus-
17
tomer—
18
‘‘(A) an administrative subpoena author-
19
ized by a Federal statute;
20
‘‘(B) a Federal grand jury, civil discovery,
21
or trial subpoena; and
22
‘‘(C) a court order for such disclosure pur-
23
suant to section 2703(d).’’


further down the document says...


Nothing in this title or an amendment made by this

10
title shall be construed to apply the warrant requirement
11
for contents of a wire or electronic communication author-
12
ized under this title or an amendment made by this title
13
to any other section of title 18, United States Code (in-
14
cluding chapter 119 of such title (commonly known as the
15
‘‘Wiretap Act’’)), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
16
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), or any other provision
17
of Federal law
That seems to me to be saying exactly the opposite.. that a warrant IS required.

[Kathianne]

I looked at the linked piece, and the amendment document attached says 'warrant' all over it. I'm a little confused.




further down the document says...


That seems to me to be saying exactly the opposite.. that a warrant IS required.

I see your second 'quote' as overturning the first. I'm not an attorney though.

More:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/268929-leahy-denies-supporting-bill-to-allow-warrantless-email-searches

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/29/senate-judiciary-committee-approves-revised-e-mail-privacy-bill/



Senate panel approves bill requiring police to get a warrant to read emails
A key Senate panel approved legislation Thursday that would require police to obtain a search warrant from a judge before they can read a private citizen's emails, Facebook messages or other electronic communications.


A key Senate panel approved legislation Thursday that would require police to obtain a search warrant from a judge before they can read a private citizen's emails, Facebook messages or other electronic communications.
The revised Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee will now move on to the full Senate for a vote. Passage would be a victory for privacy advocates, who say current privacy rules have been left in the dust by technological progress.


The revised Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee will now move on to the full Senate for a vote. Passage would be a victory for privacy advocates, who say current privacy rules have been left in the dust by technological progress.

The updated law would require a judge to sign off on a warrant to obtain any email from any time period from a third-party provider. It also eliminates the "180-day rule" that in the past has established different legal standards for law-enforcement to obtain older emails.



The revised law will make it more difficult for the government to access the content of a consumer's emails and private files from Google, Yahoo and other Internet providers.
Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, police only need a subpoena, issued without a judge's approval, to read emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old.

The updated law would require a judge to sign off on a warrant to obtain any email from any time period from a third-party provider. It also eliminates the "180-day rule" that in the past has established different legal standards for law-enforcement to obtain older emails.




So...much ado about nothing. Warrants will be required.