Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Committee Approves Stricter Email Privacy

Posted by Unknown on from the on-to-the-second-challenge dept.

New submitter DJ Jones sent in good news in the attempts to update privacy rights for stored electronic communication. From the article: "The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a bill that would strengthen privacy protection for e-mails by requiring law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant from a judge in most cases before gaining access to messages in individual accounts stored electronically. The bill is not expected to make it through Congress this year and will be the subject of negotiations next year with the Republican-led House." The EFF seems pretty happy with the proposed changes, but notes that the bill also reduces the protections of the Video Privacy Protection Act in order to allow Netflix et al to sell your viewing history.

32 of 60 comments (clear)

  1. National Security letters by martin · · Score: 2

    So how does this work with the laws allowing those nice national security letter to be issued by the fbi etc?

    1. Re:National Security letters by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Didn't bother to read?

      Service providers would be prohibited from handing over e-mail, and Mr. Leahy would get rid of the strange 180-day rule that the government can now use to compel disclosure. To access any e-mail content, law enforcement officers would be required to obtain a search warrant from a judge after demonstrating probable cause. The amendments would also oblige officials to give those whose e-mail they are reading a copy of the search warrant.

      NSL are optional, as optional as strong-arm tactics can be, and typically require a lawsuit to fight back. If providers are prohibited, NSL carries no weight - they simply respond "I can't, that's illegal."

      For the reading impaired: It doesn't mean providers *will not* hand over info with just a letter, it means the ones who care will point out that it's not that simple.

  2. Well... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    This might be the first time that the CIA and the FBI managed to collaborate on convincing the senate of the importance of privacy...

    1. Re:Well... by kqs · · Score: 2

      Not sure which is worse, the constant conspiracy theories or the use of a tragic attack to further your hatred (of a party, a black president, a political theory, not sure and doesn't matter).

      This is not an attack against specifically you. This is my sorrow that people cannot agree that their opponent has valid goals but questionable logic in achieving those goals. They must make their opponents into scheming evildoers with no redeeming values.

      Trying to turn Petreus into Vince Foster II does not serve democracy or the economy, just your own hatred. Hate Obama for his policies, not is existence or this imaginary crimes.

    2. Re:Well... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      > Petraeus was appointed with the administration already knowing all about his peccadilloes.

      Since these "peccadiloes" did not start until after the appointment you are really looking like an idiot here.

    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Chicago politics" is neo-conservative for "negros with guns".

      Chris "Tingles" Matthews, is that you?

      How do you get to "racist" from "Chicago-style politics" when the term itself was created to describe the Daly political machine, a corrupt lily-white Chicago Democrat political organization?

      pay no attention to the white house guest list

      You mean the one with all the regular visits by the Muslim Brotherhood, Trumka, SEIU, and other big-union officials, and the others that they meet with secretly in offices across from the WH to avoid having them on the visitors list?

    4. Re:Well... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      This is my sorrow that people cannot agree that their opponent has valid goals...

      What if one disagrees with the goals and honestly, with reason, does not consider them valid or has reason to believe the publicly-stated goals are not the actual goals because of actions taken that consistently do not match the publicly-stated goals?

      Hate Obama for his policies, not is existence or this imaginary crimes.

      I don't hate Obama. I don't even know Obama. Neither do you. All I know are his policies and actions, or lack of actions. And what if he *has* committed real, actual crimes? He should get a pass because of race? Isn't that racist?

      I don't even care about being called racist any more. It's been so bastardized, over-used, and misapplied to everything and everybody that disagrees with and/or opposes Obama and/or his policies and goals that it has become nearly meaningless, which I'm sure must delight the *real* racists in the KKK, NBPP, Nation of Islam, Aryan Brotherhood, etc etc.

      So, congratulations to all the Progressives/Democrats for all their hard work in setting back race relations and the battle against *actual* racism by decades by pounding this "anyone who disagrees with Obama and/or Progressive policies/goals is a racist!" meme into the ground until nobody cares or pays attention to *actual* racism anymore because of the extreme politicization of the term into a lame and meaningless generic political attack.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  3. Why is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is a bill needed for this? We have the 4th amendment already!

    1. Re:Why is this needed? by thaylin · · Score: 2

      Because recent court cases have held that the 4th amendment does not cover emails, stored on public servers

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:Why is this needed? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Unless it's encrypted perhaps?

      That would allow a "reasonable expectation of privacy"

    3. Re:Why is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Recent court cases have evidently set some bizarre and creepy precedents, then.

    4. Re:Why is this needed? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because it is "on the internet". And as we've seen time and again, "on the internet" trumps petty, meaningless things like that consti... constipation? whatever.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Why is this needed? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      More like the ECPA of 1986 didn't anticipate that we would en masse turn our private documents over to third party companies who happily data mine our privates for profit and at the same time expect these documents would be considered private in some way.

      Silly behavior I think.

    6. Re:Why is this needed? by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      One should not have to make an effort to maintain security "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" - breaking that expectation of privacy should be what requires extra effort and explicitly specified reason.

    7. Re:Why is this needed? by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      Once you've willingly handed over your papers to a third party, though, it's now up to that third party, not you, what to do with them. If Facebook wants to blab to the FBI without a warrant, they're the property owners. They have 4th-amendment rights in searches of their servers, but you don't, because you don't own the servers.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    8. Re:Why is this needed? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Once you've willingly handed over your papers to a third party, though, it's now up to that third party, not you, what to do with them.

      Sure, but we can still decide whether any evidence the government collects from these third parties is applicable in court if it collected it without a warrant. As it is, they can simply get all of the information they want from third parties as long as the third parties willingly give it to them, and I'm not sure if it's wise to allow the government to have such a power.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    9. Re:Why is this needed? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Reasoanble expectation of privacy does not require diligence of that nature. If i go into a bathroom stall with no door on it, i am still afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy. Comms should be no different.

      --
      Good-bye
    10. Re:Why is this needed? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      HIPAA says LOL. We have for a very long time no applied strict privacy to records we deem very sensitive. There is no reason we cant extend that model, if necessary. At the end of the day, it is the government that says what companies can do with data of any kind, and last i chcked WE were the government..

      --
      Good-bye
    11. Re:Why is this needed? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that I agree with. But those are statutory protections passed by a legislature; the 4th amendment doesn't compel HIPAA.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    12. Re:Why is this needed? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      and last i chcked WE were the government..

      You work for the government?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  4. Re:I am okay with the Netflix change by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

    Media distribution is a bit different from search engines, because it requires licensing deals for the content to distribute, which are often exclusive. It'd be one thing if Netflix and Company B both distributed all the major films, and you got to choose which platform you preferred based on criteria such as privacy, quality of the software, price, customer service, etc. But in practice the media business is all based around exclusive licensing deals, so for any given movie, you will be able to get it from Netflix, or from Company B, but will not have a choice of both. And what's likely is over the medium term one of those two will come out on top, as they collect all the good deals and drive the other one out of business.

    There are possible ways to deal with it, mostly by laws against exclusivity deals or "tying", but in a market that allows tying you end up with those kinds of lack of perfect competition.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  5. Because of Petreaus by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's an example of how legal protections for privacy only get enacted when someone powerful gets screwed.

    The timing sure makes this look like a reaction to the Petreaus scandal. From the news reports it sounds like the only reason Petreaus got caught is because of what had been basically carte blanche for the FBI to dig through any webmail system. Under normal circumstances the FBI should not have been investigating random threatening emails to a civilian - it was only because the civilian knew an FBI agent that wanted to bone her that the FBI even got involved. It seems implausible that a judge would have issued a warrant under those circumstances, but the FBI didn't need one under current law.

    It's been 25 years, long enough that most people don't remember Robert Bork's supreme court nomination casuing his video rental records to become embarrasingly public and ultimately resulting in the passage of the Video Privacy Protection Act. So its not much of a surprise that the VPPA is getting dismantled - despite the actual threat being worse today since everything is in massive centralized databases now instead of paper records in a local store.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Because of Petreaus by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Bork's records were a direct result - largely because Bork wanted to expand executive power, and claimed that people had limited privacy rights.

      The timing in this case does make it look suspiciously related, but you missed the point. It was not related to Petreaus. This is fear of their own mails being released and searched.

      In the Bork case, it was probably an employee who handed over a hand written list to a reporter, to prove a point. And the punishment was only $2500. In this case, it is the DOJ who thinks they can just ask for whatever they want, and frequently get it.

      Any high profile case would have resulted in the same legislation, not just someone in power, because this is all about protecting the Legislative branch from the Executive power grab. This is the system of checks and balances at work, slowly.

      And the VPAA is not getting dismantled - it just requires asking permission first, with an amendment to require that every 2 years. I assume that will be opt-out, but at least you will have the option.

  6. Re:I am okay with the Netflix change by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Of course I want to remain as anonymous as this post. Why would I be okay with Netflix selling my anonymous viewing details simply because it opens the door for a competing company that will not sell or store viewing habits. Look at DuckDuckGo. That's capitalism. Provide people a service that can or be almost be as comparable, let the people decide which is better.

    Who said anything about selling 'anonymized'(to the degree that actually works) viewing histories?

  7. Re:I am okay with the Netflix change by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Well, they're not getting their ass kicked in the OS or Office markets. Let FOSS start taking a real bite of their pie there (because really, who else can afford to play until the monopoly is broken?) and maybe *then* they'll start substantially improving those products as well, instead of just keeping the treadmill going.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  8. Netflix by benjamindees · · Score: 2

    the bill also reduces the protections of the Video Privacy Protection Act in order to allow Netflix et al to sell your viewing history.

    Just who does Netflix think they are, anyways? The internet is not, like, a big truck that they can just use to spy on everyone.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Netflix by Bengie · · Score: 1

      My question is are they selling individual data or aggregated anonymous analytic data. Big difference.

    2. Re:Netflix by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that it lets Netflix share individual information if you give consent.

    3. Re:Netflix by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      The law was kind of an outdated one. It seems like the purpose of it was to prevent the kid at blockbuster from disclosing the senator's history of borrowing those porno-betamax tapes.

  9. But of course. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    All senators want their email left under lock and key at all times. Since they can't be exempt, better law-it!

    I'm serious.

  10. Re:I am okay with the Netflix change by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Well, for one thing, Netflix had a contest a few years back that accidentally showed that you can't anonymize them if you have enough of the history to be useful, or at least that anonymization is more difficult than it would initially appear.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  11. I have a better idea by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    Encrypt everything.

    Patriot act/NSLs/gag orders don't work unless a third party has goods able to be surrendered.

    Requiring keys to be coughed up from data owner (still) requires notification to the owner and a court order.