What email privacy. Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Nov 20, 2012.

  1. MacNut, Nov 20, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012

    MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...ithout-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

    Revised bill highlights
    ✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
    ✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
    ✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
    ✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
    ✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.
     
  2. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #2
    Another bill that doesn't address our root problems while at the same time expanding the power of government.

    Awesome.
     
  3. IBradMac macrumors 68000

    IBradMac

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Location:
    Ohio
    #3
    Yep.
    These are the kinda things that make Ron Paul's neck veins bulge.
     
  4. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
  5. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #5
    I highly doubt this goes anywhere. If it were passed in to law, parts of it would probably be struck down as a violation of the 4th amendment.
     
  6. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    The sick thing is they think this is a good thing for the country. How out of touch are these people. No wonder the country has such a low opinion on these *******s.
     
  7. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #7
    That was fast.

    (That's what she said! :D )

    Seriously.. it appears now that Leahy has already abandoned his email surveillance bill.

    In short, this wasn't going anywhere, and even if someone tried, with that much opposition, it would be political suicide to try to push it.

    BL.
     
  8. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    Good to see him back peddle. I still don't understand how he thought the bill was a good idea to begin with.
     
  9. Dolorian macrumors 65816

    Dolorian

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    #9
    There was really no way that this would get approved.
     
  10. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #10
    Surely the Senate has better things to do with their time?

    All they need do is put a little finger in a dyke, and they want to construct another Hoover Dam.
     
  11. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #11
    Finally, the government can get to the bottom of the "I can haz cheeseburger" terrorist group.

    Release the evil bunnies!
     
  12. wackymacky, Nov 21, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2012

    wackymacky macrumors 68000

    wackymacky

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    38°39′20″N 27°13′10″W
    #12
    First there is quite a few instances when there is no requirement for a warrant for an email.

    This relates to the example of a post card/airogram with the information is visible on the outside. This doesn't need a warrant for a federal officer to read, because it fits within the "plain view" rules under search and seizure law

    Email when in plain txt is considered to be like a post card and therefore in plain view. No warrant or even probable cause is require to read it (while in transmission)

    If the email in encrypted, then it is classed as a opaque package like your pocket or boot of your car. It is not in "plain view and probable cause at least is needed.


    Well at least this is how the federal court has ruled in a number of cases.

    However this is accademic if you are talking about n.s,a or hom,eland security as although they might not be allowed to spy on USA citizens, the uk and Australians are allowed to, and do so for the US government on request and vice versa under shared under digital security laws.

    The reality is though (unless encrypted) anything you send on the web is visible to innumerable people along the way from your computer to what ever sever your email/web page is routed through.
     
  13. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #13
    It appalls me that this was even considered. I think that a requirement for sitting in Congress should be that the given person should be able to cite the US Constitution verbatim flawlessly from memory.
     
  14. haxrnick macrumors 6502a

    haxrnick

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    #14
    It's nice to see him evolving. That's what you call it when your guy changes his mind now and not flip-flopping, right?
     
  15. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #15
    You know, in school we had to do memorizing all the time. Our teacher would give a few poems and let us choose which ones to recite so I kind of like that idea. :) Make all incoming representatives recite the bill of rights when they take the oath. :cool:
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    Sounds like a job for the majority party in the spirit of compromise!

    There are regulations always being passed by one party for political purposes, meaning both parties agree that its ok to use it as a election issue, but both sides get the regulation they want.

    The Patriot act is a prime example. One side runs against one election, gets in, strengthens it, then the cycle starts again.

    ----------

    It's called not having a spine, or the testicular fortitude to just outright say that you support a surveillance state. It's a condition that effects 90%+ of our leaders suffer from. Poor blokes.
     
  17. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #17
    Indeed, what we need are not stronger privacy laws but better education about what constitutes privacy on the 'net. "zOMG, the FBI looked at my blog, the bastards! It's and invasion of my privacy, I tells ya!" I mean, "snooping" Facebook and Twitter? That stuff was always meant to be public, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be learned some stuff good.

    The Senate finally got themselves one of those this time around.
     
  18. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #18
    I was afraid of that .... it just didn't look 'right'.

    Just too lazy to do anything about it. :p

    And good luck to any of them trying to put a finger in it.
     

Share This Page