Slashdot Mirror
Cyber Security Enhancement Act Passes Senate
XorNand writes "The Cyber Security Enhancement Act (which was attached to the Homeland Security Act) was overwelming approved by the U.S. Senate today. According the EFF this soon-to-be-law allows "any government entity (federal, state, or local) to request email and voicemail from your ISP or telephone provider without a warrant or probable cause." The passage of the Homeland Security Bill is covered here on CNN.com. Yippee."
We should fight back and use more cryptography. Even if it is somewhat weak, they can't decrypt ALL the encrypted e-mails going over the net, can they? :]
...Or is it unreasonable search and seizure if the material they obtain is not on your property or within your reach and control?
I swear Bush sounds more and more facist and like a smooth talking Hitler every day. "We're in danger. We'll protect you and preserve your freedom. All it will cost is your freedom."
This is insane. More email is delivered than first class mail in the US today. The interception of first class mail requires a federal warrant. How did this bill pass, in it's current state, with a 90-0 vote?!
This is exact the reason I gave up being a SQL DBA and went back to school to get a law degree.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Which prompts me to wonder whether this 'no probable cause' clause also includes the cell phone conversation archives which (given some media reports re: backtracing Sept. 11 hijackers) are purportedly being kept (and if so, would be kept in perpetuity, the costs of data storage being what they are).
I daresay that a fishing expedition with even today's rudimentary voice recognition software could pick up a decent number of drug dealers, both large and small scale.
Incidentally, I would also like to remind anyone who begins to respond that they're glad they don't live in the US that their own nation more likely than not has essentially equivalent laws either on the books or waiting to be passed. I'm talking to Canadians especially, here, since a) they gloat about not being American whenever given the chance; b) they're normally ignorant of their own nation's politics; and c) because I know, thanks to personal research in the past, exactly what Canada's current laws regarding government surveillance are, and have read the outlines of the newer bills which will be passed sooner or later by our "friends" in the federal Liberal Party of Canada)
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
The sort of privacy rollbacks we're seeing have been hotly desired by certain groups for years. They probably already had their ideal statutes written up, ready for a quick edit in the wordprocessor. So it is more accurate to view this sort of legislation not as a kneejerk reaction but as a kneejerk opportunity for a long-simmering reaction. Many are exploiting the country's disarray to advance their law-and-order agendas, without even a pretense of any real advance in defending the nation against terrorism.
:).
As for the near-unanimous Senate vote, you can imagine the fear of those who had qualms -- in the next election they'd have someone shaking a finger at them, accusing them of undermined the nation's security. It would be ludicrous if only it didn't work. Amazing how much political mileage a few bastards with boxcutters can provide.
Encrpyt now! And when the FBI drops by to interview you (the ones I've met have been unfailingly polite), give them the number of a lawyer (it doesn't have to be *your* lawyer
Seriously, the privacy issue demands active engagement by U.S. citizens (non-condescending foreigners are welcome to weigh in, too). Pick your favorite advocacy group as your antenna and tune in, this ain't over yet.
This is a very important distiction.
Everyone seems intent on the government reading your email. This article seems to say a lot differently.
Indeed, the rights granted seem to make a little sense, even.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
President Bush is not mentally capable of being a leader of a country. He only participates in selling parts of the government to the highest bidder. As Senator John McCain says, the U.S. government has been corrupted by money disguised as campaign contributions.
This is not meant to be excessively negative about George W. Bush. There are many people who are not mentally capable of being a leader of a country.
George Bush's performance is typical for someone who has been an alcoholic: 1) Many alcoholics are extemely likeable. 2) Alcoholics don't like conflict; they resolve conflict in crude ways. 3) Alcoholics don't like to be expected to think.
President Bush delivers the statements that are written for him. Have you noticed that the coherence of his statements has improved now that he has a staff of more than 5,000 in the White House? He didn't suddenly develop ways of thinking more clearly.
The U.S. is experiencing a social breakdown. Few good leaders are available. For example, President Clinton was the child of two alcoholics. His crude adjustment to sexuality is typical for a child of alcoholics. It must be said, however, that President Clinton was mentally capable of understanding the issues of running a government, and he also had spent many years teaching himself government policy.
Other aspects of the social breakdown in the United States are: 1) The U.S. has the highest percentage of obese people in the world. People in the U.S. eat when they are not hungry, a sign of unhappiness and social disfunctionality. 2) The U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country in the history of the world. European countries have one-sixth the percentage of their citizens in prison. 3) The U.S. government lacks social skills. The government's answer to conflict is often violence. The U.S. government has bombed 14 countries in 33 years, killing more than 3,000,000 people directly. The number killed indirectly is credibly estimated to be more than 3,000,000 additional people. 4) The U.S. government has at least two world-wide police forces that are authorized to kill anyone anywhere -- the FBI and the CIA. This also shows poor social skills. 5) The U.S. government is the biggest manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government is also the government that talks most about using its weapons.
This is the text of the part (d) of the "Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002", which is section 225 of the
(House of Representatives version) of H. R. 5710, the Bill in question.
Section 225 is found on page 51 of H. R. 5710
I've removed the line numbers, but kept the original lines breaks. The quoted text begins after the three dashes, and ends before the four dashes
---
(d) EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 2702(b) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ''or'' at
the end;
(B) in paragraph (6)(A), by inserting ''or''
at the end;
(C) by striking paragraph (6)(C); and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
''(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental
entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an
emergency involving danger of death or serious phys-
ical injury to any person requires disclosure without
delay of communications relating to the emer-
gency.''.
(2) REPORTING OF DISCLOSURES.--A govern-
ment entity that receives a disclosure under section
2702(b) of title 18, United States Code, shall file,
not later than 90 days after such disclosure, a report
to the Attorney General stating the paragraph of
that section under which the disclosure was made,
the date of the disclosure, the entity to which the
disclosure was made, the number of customers or
subscribers to whom the information disclosed per-
tained, and the number of communications, if any,
that were disclosed. The Attorney General shall pub-
lish all such reports into a single report to be sub-
mitted to Congress 1 year after the date of enact-
ment of this Act.
----
Below is the text of Section 2702(b) of title 18, United States Code, as provided by findlaw.com. As I note below, the version found through findlaw differs slightly from the version to which H.R. 5710 appears to refer. Please unsderstand that nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice, and do not rely on the below as neccesarily accurate.
Italics indicate text removed from 18 United States Code 2702(b) by H.R. 5710, Section 225, part (d)
Boldface indicates text added to 18 United States Code 2702(b) by H.R. 5710, Section 225, part (d)
* United States Code
o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
+ PART I - CRIMES
# CHAPTER 121 - STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 2702. Disclosure of contents
(a) Prohibitions. - Except as provided in subsection (b) -
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication
service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person
or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic
storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to
the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity
the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained
on that service -
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic
transmission from (or created by means of computer processing
of communications received by means of electronic transmission
from), a subscriber or customer of such service; and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer
processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the
provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such
communications for purposes of providing any services other
than storage or computer processing.
(b) Exceptions. - A person or entity may divulge the contents of
a communication -
(1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication
or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient;
(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511(2)(a), or
2703 of this title;
(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee
or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in
the case of remote computing service;
(4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are
used to forward such communication to its destination;
(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the
service or to the protection of the rights or property of the
provider of that service; or
(6) to a law enforcement agency -
(A) if the contents -
(i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider;
and
(ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or or
(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of
1990.
The copy of 18 US 2702(b) available through findlaw.com has no paragraph (6)(C)
''(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental
entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an
emergency involving danger of death or serious phys-
ical injury to any person requires disclosure without
delay of communications relating to the emer-
gency.''
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?