Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Bill Rewrite Lets Feds Read Your E-mail Without Warrants

Posted by timothy on from the as-if-they-wouldn't-otherwise dept.

concealment writes "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. [Sen. Patrick] 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."

45 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. Yay! Democrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guardians of our Liberties and Privacy!

    Good thing those nasty old Republicans aren't running the show. They might force the Feds to get a search warrant or something.

    1. Re:Yay! Democrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're gonna have to rewrite your national anthem at this rate

      Home of the brave - Nope. You have a whole agency called TSA which I assume stands for The Scared Americans

      And what with this lot you can hardly be called the land of the free

    2. Re:Yay! Democrats! by Damastus+the+WizLiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guardians of our Liberties and Privacy!

      Good thing those nasty old Republicans aren't running the show. They might force the Feds to get a search warrant or something.

      Do you really think that one side or the other is going be that much better?

      --
      I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
    3. Re:Yay! Democrats! by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your glee is... misplaced. Since the paranoid responses to September 11 over a decade ago, both sides of the aisle can hang their heads in shame. The elected officials of both parties have pushed the power of government to interfere with our personal liberties on the promise of "keeping us safe". It's bullshit, of course, but to suggest that it is being shoveled by one party more than another is to ignore plain facts.

    4. Re:Yay! Democrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could post something like "Damned Republicans!" and get a +5 on Slashdot, without anybody realizing that Leahy's a Democrat.

    5. Re:Yay! Democrats! by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd argue that republican vs democrat is missing the underlying cause. The parties aren't conspiring to erode our privacy or liberties. The voters have indicated they're willing to trade those away for a sense of security. The parties are selling the voters what they want.

      Stupid voters...

    6. Re:Yay! Democrats! by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good thing those nasty old Republicans aren't running the show. They might force the Feds to get a search warrant or something.

      Sadly neither side is the epitome of Liberty, but Democrats are no better, that is for sure.

    7. Re:Yay! Democrats! by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You see a direct attack on the Fourth Amendment, and the best you can come up with is, "ha ha, it was your side that did it, not mine." Do you listen to yourself or are everyone's civil rights just another baseball game to you?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    8. Re:Yay! Democrats! by DaMattster · · Score: 3

      Guardians of our Liberties and Privacy!

      Good thing those nasty old Republicans aren't running the show. They might force the Feds to get a search warrant or something.

      Not quite. The Republicans would do exactly the same thing and this is why we desperately need a viable third party. The Libertarians would never propose or stand for this. Ditch both parties, become a Libertarian - honestly about a small, far less intrusive government.

    9. Re:Yay! Democrats! by moeinvt · · Score: 3, Funny

      We already have a new national anthem. It goes like this:

      "AMERICA! .... F*** Yeah! "

    10. Re:Yay! Democrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, "the free" part is still true. It just doesn't refer to the people any more. It is the government that is free. Free to do whatever the hell they want with no oversight and nothing anyone can do about it. Because, you know, only child-molesters and terrorists want to be free, and you'd have to be one of those two groups to say anything about what the government does.

      The United States has a cancer and is rotting from within. (Sad enough on its own, worse by the fact that they are not alone.)

    11. Re:Yay! Democrats! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're gonna have to rewrite your national anthem at this rate

      Home of the brave - Nope. You have a whole agency called TSA which I assume stands for The Scared Americans

      And what with this lot you can hardly be called the land of the free

      They're the Terrorists' Surrogate Army.

      Because they won and we're now an occupied country. And we even supplied the occupation troops for them.

    12. Re:Yay! Democrats! by moeinvt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The parties aren't conspiring to erode our privacy or liberties."

      I share your disappointment with the voting public, but I disagree on this point. It's obvious that the Patriot Act had been written long before 9-11-2001 and TPTB were just waiting for an excuse to implement it. That's solid proof of a "conspiracy".

      Do you think that the Patriot Act would be re-authorized if it was put up for national referendum? How about the bill being discussed in the article? IMO, the people that "support" these measures do so passively, while the people that oppose them are passionate in their opposition. For that reason, I think the opposition would win.

      Unfortunately, we're stuck with the false dichotomy of the 2 party system and most of the 'R's and 'D's agree that The People should have fewer civil liberties. This issue just isn't important enough for most people to compel them to vote for a 3rd party. That's tacit support for the policies, but it's not a matter of politicians bending to popular opinion.

    13. Re:Yay! Democrats! by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You see a direct attack on the Fourth Amendment, and the best you can come up with is, "ha ha, it was your side that did it, not mine." Do you listen to yourself or are everyone's civil rights just another baseball game to you?

      Maybe it's because when Bush was president and something like this is proposed, we heard repeatedly how evil Bush was. Now that Obama is president and this is a bill by a Democrat introduced into a Democrat led Senate, all we hear is that both parties are the same.

      Maybe everyone should go back and look at the vote they cast a couple of weeks ago and wonder if they made the right decision. What's the old saying about power corrupting?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    14. Re:Yay! Democrats! by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, we could trust corporations to do this so much better. Libertarians - cut out the middle man in our plutocracy.

      Libertarians are about a smaller federal government and expanded states' rights. Under a Libertarian Utopia, it would be up to your state to limit the power of big business... or not. Either way, your voice gets louder and your vote counts for more the smaller the election gets. In other words, your vote counts more in smaller, local elections than it does in large federal ones.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    15. Re:Yay! Democrats! by Sectoid_Dev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed who are these 'hippies' and other people living work free off the largess of others? I look around and I see a soon to be permanent underclass working 60 hours a week at 2 part time jobs.

    16. Re:Yay! Democrats! by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you RTFA?

      dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns

      after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation

      Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill

      The voters have NOT indicated they're willing to trade those away for a sense of security.
      The parties are NOT selling the voters what they want.

      This is a naked power grab by the portion of our government that would prefer a police state.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    17. Re:Yay! Democrats! by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you really think that one side or the other is going be that much better?

      I have a feeling that the Greens or Libertarians may be.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    18. Re:Yay! Democrats! by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We already have a new national anthem. It goes like this:

      "AMERICA! .... F*** Yeah! "

      2nd verse:
      ?????
      3rd verse
      Profit

      No, no.

      It goes "Second verse, same as the first

      I'm "enery the eighth I am, 'enery the eighth I am I am..."

      And I'm sue that if King Henry VIII were to see this, he would be proud of Sen Leahy, the Democrats, and the Republicans for their heroic efforts to keep the serfs and other rabble that might oppose the Crown...err...US administration...in line and remind them that they only have the rights the government decides to allow any particular person at any given time.

      But never mind all that boring stuff and men behind curtains pulling levers, did you hear about the latest juicy political sex scandal?? OMG!! And abortion!...gay marriage!...racism!...terrorism!...Evil rich!...pedophiles!...GEORGE BUSH!! Oh my!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  2. Slashdot has a credibility problem by Nimey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I saw the summary and immediately thought "oh, surely this is Yet Another example of the submitter tarting up a story and the editor not bothering to read the story first to verify the truth of it".

    The story seems to be true (except that it's just in the bill stage, so the headline should read "will let", but let's not let facts get in the way, Slashdot), but that's immaterial to my post here.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Slashdot has a credibility problem by Tmann72 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering it specifically calls it a Bill in the headline this seems to be one of those situations where anyone with knowledge of how the system works would automatically understand what you said anyway. Otherwise, even without your additions the argument wasn't really enhanced in any real way. The privacy problem is still very real, and the legislation should be stopped immediately. The fact that this is "only" at the bill stage doesn't diminish the realities of the privacy violations here. Aside from the fact that this likely is unconstitutional as a violation of the 4th amendment. However, to be fair, we need to update the fourth amendment. It currently reads "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." We need to expand on this to account not just for papers, but to digital documentation.

    2. Re:Slashdot has a credibility problem by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is there a convenient but more secure alternative to Google docs?

      LibreOffice. No one can open those files.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  3. Reality by Yaddoshi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever anyone starts freaking out about email snooping, I find it is a good time to point out that an email message that is not encrypted is roughly as secure in transit as a postcard.

    1. Re:Reality by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it is non trivial to set up. People of average intelligence get confused with key exchanges, signing, etc.

    2. Re:Reality by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And in my country the police (or anybody else) aren't allowed to routinely intercept my post without a warrant (and otherwise it has to be random discovery, i.e. the post office spot a suspicious package or trail of packages and inform the police, etc.).

      So even if your analogy were perfect, it's got little to do with the warrantless tracking.

      That said, even if you encrypt the postcard, there's nothing to say that the guy the other end isn't forced to give a decrypted version to his local law enforcement or face jail-time anyway. Which is, again, strangely true to the analogous email storage too.

      The problem here is NOT message security. The problem here is law enforcement being able to do these things with no tracking, no permissions, no way to tell if they are deliberately targeting innocents (e.g. fishing expeditions), no way to tell if they are intercepting their old girlfriend's post, etc. because of the desire to remove JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. Nobody cares that X sent an email that was used to prosecute him.

      We *do* care that person in department *Y* has routine, unauthorised, complete access to things we do with no judicial oversight and could be using them to snoop on your girlfriend, or see if his hunch was right about your sexual habits. And THAT is none of their business, and why we have judicial oversight in the form of having to ask for warrants that are limited in scope (i.e. you can't just ask for a warrant to "always" do this "for ever").

    3. Re:Reality by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That said, even if you encrypt the postcard, there's nothing to say that the guy the other end isn't forced to give a decrypted version to his local law enforcement or face jail-time anyway.

      You make a valid point but I think the gist of this legislation is to allow legal, casual snooping without the hassle of obtaining a warrant. If this bill passes, there will be egregious abuses (cop snooping on ex-wife, etc) that will go unchallenged because, well, it was legal. The only excuse needed will be "I felt the safety of the person was at risk" or "We had reason to believe..."

      Whole point is, this bill would make casual snooping and abuses very easy to get away with and the consequences non-existent and easy as pie to skirt-around.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    4. Re:Reality by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agreed.

      But that's not the problem either - information you put into the public domain stays there. Information you give to companies will be available from within those companies to the people who are given access. Breaches of that trust are data-protection issues which we also have laws against.

      Cases in point: In the UK, we've had things like NHS staff look up celebrity medical records and publish bits online. Their actions were logged, they were charged, they were sacked. It was illegal.

      It's not a case of what happens that's already illegal, it's a case of what is currently ILLEGAL that you're going to make LEGAL (which is almost always the only interesting part of any legislative bill in any country). That would include the ability for a handful of government departments (some with zero need of it) to LEGALLY just read your email on a whim and never explain their actions. We wouldn't know because there would be no judicial oversight.

      We've had cases in the UK where councils given similar powers would do things like investigate people's shopping habits to see if they were the ones who'd thrown the wrong recycling into the wrong recycling bin. Had them literally park CCTV vans across the road to watch it happen because of data gleaned from these "innocent", uncontrolled sources.

      If a private email of mine leaks, it's either from the person I sent it to or the mailservers along the way. It doesn't take much to trace those kinds of things and the police will do it because it would be against the law for someone in Google to publish my private email without my permission.

      But this would allow, for example, a government department employee to read my email and show all his mates in the office, and maybe use it against me when I go to a government office requiring some random service. Nobody would ever know unless it came to light in some other way. It might be a breach of workplace policy but his actions would be entirely LEGAL, and by its very definition it would override or conflict with data protection laws.

      Read this change in the law as nothing more than "we don't want to have to tell a judge why we want to read your email", which sounds infinitely more sinister and should worry you more than anything else. There's no legitimate reason that such requests can't already be done WITH judicial oversight. And if they were clogging up court systems with them, it would be the JUDGES complaining about their use.

      This is just a way to side-step a legal system as if it were a hurdle, by making the act you want to perform legal even if it goes against several other laws and would be put down by a judge in a second.

  4. Fascinating... by fullback · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm an ex-pat who's lived outside the U.S. for twenty years (this year). It's been fascinating to watch the transformation of America from a distance over the past decade.

    It's fascinating, like watching a car crash in slow motion is fascinating.

    1. Re:Fascinating... by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm an ex-pat who's lived outside the U.S. for twenty years (this year). It's been fascinating to watch the transformation of America from a distance over the past decade.

      America transformed into a snooping society well over a decade ago. Did you not read the European Parliament's ECHELON investigation in 2001 (a sensation sadly forgotten after the infinitely bigger press sensation of September 11th)? All that infrastructure was in place in the 1990s, and it was President Clinton who favoured intercepting foreign business correspondence in order to "level the playing field".

  5. Look at the age of the Senator. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That generation (generalizing Big time) - both Dems and Reps - have a completely different view of America. They were the kids who were alive during WWII and saw everyone working together to defeat evil. The government was Good. The government fought for freedom.

    To them, we are the source of Good, Truth, Justice, and that we can do no wrong. They lived during the US' best economic times, they saw the US become a World power and pretty much lead the World.

    My 20 something daughter and her grandparents talk as if they come from two different countries. It's really entertaining. I look forward to Thanksgiving.

  6. if this is important to you by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stop whining on Slashdot for a few minutes and write your Senator and Congressman.

    1. Re:if this is important to you by dnahelicase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop whining on Slashdot for a few minutes and write your Senator and Congressman.

      Last time I wrote my senator (Dan Coats) it was to express my disapproval in what he was doing and how he was acting on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

      I got a letter back in the mail, which started out "Thank you for your letter supporting me in my disapproval of how the Obama administration is handling the Bengazi incident. As you may or may not be aware, I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee..."

      You can write, call, speak, campaign, but it doesn't really matter. Everyone that gets elected seem to think they have a "mandate" and do whatever they want until someone else gets elected and continues on in the same manner.

    2. Re:if this is important to you by PortHaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really, cause I recall how during the passage of Obamacare, Congressman received more opposing calls, emails, etc than ever before. In fact, they may have received more than every before combined.

      A difference it did not make.

      Same with SOPA/PIPA, no effect. Until Google, Wikipedia, Amazon and others hinted they could drop off the web in protest. And the politicians realized such would lead to incumbent losses.

      Seriously, look at California's GMO bill. Which was apparently polling around 80% and then amazingly lost.....really. I mean, who doesn't want to know what they're eating?

      It's a game, and most of us are too stupid to realize we are being played.

  7. Re:A little bit of history repeating... by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first step was the destruction of history classes. Anyone under 30 doesn't understand why losing little freedoms is so dangerous.

  8. Why do we even have warrants in the U.S. anymore? by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, what does the 4th Amendment in particular, or the Constitution in general, even apply to anymore? The government can subvert every single protection afforded in the Constitution simply by saying "It's a national security matter" (or even "It's a law enforcement matter") and every court in the country will simply turn its head and ignore it.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  9. It's called treason for a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's call this what it is, high treason. The president, members of congress, and judges all swear an oath of office to defend the Constitution, not render it asunder.

    "I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. ..."

  10. Yuck by Cornwallis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since I live in Vermont I figured I'd call his office - and was passed along to the Judiciary Committee - where I got the [what sounded like every other] usual dissembling response. ("The Senator is very concerned about privacy..."). I'm afraid unless EFF and others get involved very publicly this is a fait accompli.

    When SOPA was floating around I called and was told by a (what sounded like a 20-something year-old) staffer "You don't know what you're talking about at all" - exact words - so I'm not holding out much hope!

  11. Legality by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did you not read the European Parliament's ECHELON investigation in 2001

    That was a secret thing because it was illegal. If your snooping powers are illegal, you'll do it anyway when it's really really important. There's always the risk of getting caught or bad PR or losing your job etc. But once you enshrine the snooping in law and sidestep constitutional protections, it become ripe for abuse. So yes, it has always been going on but they're now trying to take it to another level.

  12. Re:Why do we even have warrants in the U.S. anymor by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No it won't. The Constitution is just about meaningless these days.

    - you can be stopped, searched, and seized with no suspicion or warrant
    - try using your right to bear arms in NYC
    - granted, they're not quartering troops in our homes....but there is no need to.
    - guess, we still have the right to gripe...for now

  13. Re:where is a petition against this that I can sig by PortHaven · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can find the petition here...

    http://cheaperthandirt.com/

  14. We may have to have the revolution after all. by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Access to my tweets without a warrant is not a fight I need to have. I spew these out to my supposedly private followers, and it would be trivial for the government to sneak into my list with a handle as unimaginiative as bigbrother or watchingyou or even mintruth. Privacy on Twitter is not an illusion, it is nonexistent.

    Access to my Facebook wall, if I designate it as for friends only, I think is improper. No, this I need to fight.

    Reading my email without a warrant? Time to consider that email is replacing snail mail so well that the USPS is going under, just slower than Hostess. If the government needs a warrant to open an envelope and read my paper mail, they should need a warrant to do the same to my email.

    And the electronic nature of email does not change the fact that I have as much an expectation of privacy as with paper mail. Think it over. Someone can, for most of us, reach into your mailbox and take out an envelope, steam it open, Polaroid the contents, and put it back. The medium does not change the act, merely the process. We need to re-establish the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, among others. This finally gets me to open up my phone and email my representatives today. We may have to have the revolution after all.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  15. Modern communications and the Constitution by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Secure in our papers and effects. When written, this included all private communications. Simply because we use electrons instead of ink and paper doesn't mean we lose the protection of the 4th amendment.

  16. Called my Senators...did you? by Hellburner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This caused me to login and post for the first time in a long while.

    Just spoke to one of Senator Snowe's assistants in the DC office. The assistant was not familiar with HR 2471. I asked that the Senator oppose such legislation. Senator Collins' office in DC only gave me a voicemail...

    Called Senator Sanders' office in DC, since Sanders seems to actually understand little things like the Constitution. Sanders' assistant seemed to think that warrantless access was already the norm.

    Apparently I woke up in Russia this morning...

    Will contact Leahy's office soon. A little less time with Batman movies, Senator Leahy, a little more time guarding the rights of the citizenry.

  17. Yep this is democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The difference between Western democracies and the old skool Communist regimes?

    Difference #1: We call ourselves a democracy, so of course we are.

    Difference #2: Instead of ONE party, we have TWO parties (note the huge quantitative difference), so everybody can freely pick the party that perfectly matches their views.

    Difference #3: We wear more colorful clothing, so that means we have freedom.

    Difference #4: Instead of a politburo to control lawmakers, we have gigantic corporations.

    The list goes on.

    (If you actually think democracy could be better then the farce we have now, then help change it peacefully from the outside using open source tools and principles.)

    1. Re:Yep this is democracy by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Difference #1: We call ourselves a democracy, so of course we are."

      We are as democratic as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

       

      --
      New Economic Perspectives