Slashdot Mirror
Texas Poised To Pass Unprecedented Email Privacy Bill
An anonymous reader writes "A bill has reached the desk of Texas Governor Rick Perry that would give stronger privacy protections to email accounts than exist in any other state. If Perry signs it (or simply declines to veto it before June 16th), the legislation would force law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before reading somebody's email, even if the email has been sitting on the server for a long time. 'As we've noted many times before, there are no such provisions in federal law once the e-mail has been opened or if it has been sitting in an inbox, unopened, for 180 days. In March 2013, the Department of Justice acknowledged in a Congressional hearing that this distinction no longer makes sense and the DOJ would support revisions to ECPA.' This bill passed the state legislature unanimously. The article points out that the legislation won't protect from federal investigations, but it will set a precedent that the U.S. Congress will surely notice. An attorney with the EFF said, 'It's significant as proof that privacy reform is not only needed, but also politically-feasible with broad bipartisan support. And hopefully that will impact federal ECPA reform efforts by getting people on both of sides of the political aisle to work together to make meaningful electronic privacy reform a reality. The more states that pass similar legislation, the more pressure it will put on Congress to keep up with the changing legal landscape.'"
What does it mean for an email to have been "opened"?
Also, doesn't that mean that *all* email can be viewed without a warrant given that the government only has to wait for the sooner of the email being "opened" or 180 days?
Lots of folks like to mis-characterize Texas and Texans, but as a foreigner they seem to be doing plenty of things right. Their state economy is not borked like California, they have low tax, they value individual rights more than overbearing 'nanny' governance, and they have good political leadership. Ted Cruz for Prez 2016 would not be a bad choice it seems - he's very smart and would stop the current rot in DC.
This act is of historic significance for three reasons: One, it protects the privacy of Texas citizens when they're communicating using email. Two, it requires the government to get a search warrant. And three... uh oh, email privacy, search warrant, what was the third one again? Email privacy was one...
Ted Cruz for president sounded like you ate rotten egg for breakfast! Kudos to the bill but Texas still deny science! BTW the low tax Texas is myth just look how much we pay property tax!
If a privacy bill makes it harder to catch corrupt legislators, then you can be pretty sure it is going to pass.
Something Texas has done that I think is actually a pretty sensible idea? What... what have I become? YOU DID THIS TO ME!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"the more pressure it will put on Congress to keep up with the changing legal landscape."
Congress can't even keep it's own house in order so I won't be holding my breath for any action on this issue.
Privacy is not at the forefront of any politician's agenda that I know of, unless you can find a way to make it turn a profit, and it never will be until there's a massive breech i.e. until it's already too late.
Less *is* more.
BTW the low tax Texas is myth just look how much we pay property tax!
Well, as taxes go, property taxes come closer than most others to having the tax burden be proportional to how much it costs the government to provide services to you. I have moral problems with taxes per se, but if we have to have them, then having the amount of money you have to pay to Texas be proportional to how much you own of Texas is much better than an income tax or a sales tax.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and therefore Constitutionally prohibited from running for President of the United States.
It's not the state that really matters but the Feds, and although these protections are nice and worth of praise, I keep all my *important* person-to-person email at a server in Switzerland with some of the toughest privacy regulations exist, and all things that are *really* important, are always, with no exception, sent and received using GPG, and retrieved via POP with nothing kept in the servers there. I'll keep my own email backups, thanks.
The funny thing is that I know I'm probably the most boring person out there with nothing important to hide, but I do it as a matter of principle, and so should you.
having the amount of money you have to pay to Texas be proportional to how much you own of Texas is much better than an income tax or a sales tax.
Yet it seems to fly in the face of "no taxation without representation".
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
What's needed is end to end encryption, even if it has to be built into the browser and done for webmail.
The Feds simply chose to decide they could demand email that was 6 months old without a warrant, they'll simply choose to ignore the Texas law too. What's needed is a physical barrier.
It's quite straightforwards, we can make an end to end one now, the tools are there. Someone with crypto knowledge can make a Firefox plugin that encrypts the text field with the recipients public key and does the automatic key exchange for every email sent (which will initially be plain text until the key exchange).
It should be part of the HTML spec, but I don't think the Feds would allow it.
and all the ISP need to do is move the servers out of TX.
but if we have to have them, then having the amount of money you have to pay to Texas be proportional to how much you own of Texas is much better than an income tax or a sales tax.
OK...so for those working a minimum wage job trying to support a family, who own no property in Texas, you're fine with them not having to pay tax? Or are you going to call them freeloaders? or part of the 47%?
Or maybe things aren't so black-and-white?
next question?
And then all you have to do is switch to an e-mail provider who values your privacy enough to not leave Texas.
And seriously, who the hell uses their ISP's e-mail service anyway? I prefer to use a service independent of my ISP, so in the likely chance my ISP pisses me off I can just tell them to fuck off and switch to a new one... and not have my e-mail communications interrupted.
US Constitution Amendment 14: "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."
There's no legitimate way that government could be reading these emails 180 days and "opened" or not without a probably cause warrant. I understand the fact is they do, so it's great that Texas is passing the law to stymie that abuse, but how is it possibly justified to begin with? It's right there plain to read. That's prohibited. Has nobody taken it to court?
"Texas! You did something right!"
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
taxes go, property taxes come closer than most others to having the tax burden be proportional to how much it costs the government to provide services to you. I have moral problems with taxes per se, but if we have to have them, then having the amount of money you have to pay to Texas be proportional to how much you own of Texas is much better than an income tax or a sales tax.Best way to earn more money.
having the amount of money you have to pay to Texas be proportional to how much you own of Texas is much better than an income tax or a sales tax.
Yet it seems to fly in the face of "no taxation without representation".
Are Texans not represented?
Is there a law (natural or man-made) to say: you get the amount of representation is a proportion of the paid taxes?
OK...so for those working a minimum wage job trying to support a family, who own no property in Texas, you're fine with them not having to pay tax? Or are you going to call them freeloaders? or part of the 47%? Or maybe things aren't so black-and-white?
I'm fine with them not having to pay a direct tax for those services that are funded by the property tax. First, they will be paying it indirectly via the rent they pay to their landlord, just like they indirectly pay gas tax on items they buy that have been trucked to the store. Second, I would not propose having everything paid this way, just those services whose cost is (roughly) proportional to the value/size of your property -- police protection, for instance, since thieves obviously would rather rob rich people than poor people. The aforementioned gas tax is a better way to pay for roads, since (until electric cars become more popular) the amount of gas you burn is roughly proportional to how much wear and tear you inflict on the roads. That assumes that the gas tax goes only for the roads and doesn't, as it usually is now, get put into the general fund. That general fund is one of the basic problems, because it muddles the connection between what you pay and what you take.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Well, as taxes go, property taxes come closer than most others to having the tax burden be proportional to how much it costs the government to provide services to you. I have moral problems with taxes per se, but if we have to have them, then having the amount of money you have to pay to Texas be proportional to how much you own of Texas is much better than an income tax or a sales tax.
That's cool. So Texas charges property tax on property outside of real estate, like stocks and bonds and intellectual "property"?
Wear and tear on roads is more related to the pressure the vehicle places on the road.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating
A general fund is not a problem anymore than insurance is a problem because it pools risks from many, and that many pay for the few. Maybe you don't need your left earlobe as much as you need some other part of your body, but as long as you aren't starving and desperate I don't see why you wouldn't want to keep it around even if it might not contribute more than it takes.
Yes, and as a general rule, heavier vehicles consume more fuel (and so pay more taxes) per mile driven.
Wear and tear on roads is more related to the pressure the vehicle places on the road. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating
Yes, but in general, the heavier the vehicle, the more gas it burns. And the more it is driven, the more gas it burns. So, a per-unit tax on fuel is roughly proportional to weight times miles. You could certainly come up with a more precise measure, but this seems a good enough approximation to me, without having to actually monitor the vehicle's activity.
A general fund is not a problem anymore than insurance is a problem because it pools risks from many, and that many pay for the few.
Except that your car insurance is separate from your health insurance, both of which are separate from your home insurance, etc. And for each one, the amount you have to pay is based on the probable amount that you will receive. That is how I am saying taxes vs. government spending should work. If you have a more expensive car, you pay higher car insurance rates, and if you have more property attracting thieves, your contribution to police funding should be higher. But just because you make more money doesn't mean you should be made to pay for, say, a public pool which you may never use. That's what entrance fees are for.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
That's cool. So Texas charges property tax on property outside of real estate, like stocks and bonds and intellectual "property"?
If you mean do they now, I don't think so. If you mean should they according to what I said before, then no. If you own a stock, you own part of a company, not part of Texas.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Is there a law (natural or man-made) to say: you get the amount of representation is a proportion of the paid taxes?
Just s/taxes/campaign contributions/g, and there is.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Its on the state level only. Until Texas, as a state, demands washington to back up off its high horse, little to nothing privacy-wise is gained.
State level only... state level. On the other hand, look at Washington and Colorado.
One of the things I like about a tax revenue solely coming from sales tax is that all the goods and services that use public property and services are taxed according to their use. Your good needs to be shipped, sales tax on gasoline pays for the road, you want the police and fire fighters to protect your property, the sale tax on land and construction pays for that, as long as no exemptions are used for taxes it remains very simple. There is no ambiguity on how much something should be taxed either, as with property tax, where the government appraiser chooses how much taxes you should pay and is influenced by factors that don't include the actual value of the property.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
If anybody has something to hide no doubt most congress members do. Maybe they should be all for privacy in order to keep their own skeletons closeted!
Read the article. The law does NOT apply to federal authorities. That's why Holder is enthusiastically supporting it.
And of course, there's no restriction against the FBI reading Texans' emails and then passing the info on to local Texas law enforcement...
And since Texas has essentially no state law enforcement, this law applies only to Texas county mounties, who as we all know, are armed to the teeth with the latest most invasive ultra-high tech surveillance equipment and so pose a much graver threat to the tweets of every free-thinkin' Texan than Uncle Sam's merry band of good ol' boys: the FBI, CIA, NSA, NRO, DIA, etc, etc
Jeez. What a waste of time is the Texas legislature.
Well, as taxes go, property taxes come closer than most others to having the tax burden be proportional to how much it costs the government to provide services to you.
I have a huge problem with property taxes. I rent, so I don't pay property tax, right? Wrong. My rent just went up fifty bucks a month because the tax was increased $600 yearly. And guess what? The guy on the west side seldom sees a cop, they're all over here on the east side where the violence is and where most of the burglaries and robberies are. And fires, as well -- the older a house is the more likely it will burn. Empty houses catch fire more often than occupied ones, and the unoccupied ones are in the parts of town nobody wants to live in because of the crime. So your statement about proportional to cost of government seems wrong.
But my biggest problem is that years ago, a friend's parents lost their home. They were retired, the mortgage paid off. But the housing boom/bubble raised property taxes to the point that their taxes were higher than the mortgage payments had been before it was paid off. Unable to pay the tax, the city took their home, the home they had owned free and clear for decades.
This is just wrong. Nobody should be thrown out of their home because government jacked the taxes up on it.
Sales tax is problematic too, since it is highly regressive. A poor person will pay taxes on almost all their income, because they live paycheck to paycheck. A rich person spends far less of his income than a poor person.
The graduated income tax is the only fair tax. The rich mostly benefit from government. A policman is a rich man's friend, a cop is a poor man's nightmare. The poor man gets absolutely nothing fro cops except trouble. If his house is burglarized, the cop takes a report and God help the poor sucker if there's a roachclip on the table when the cop takes the report. When the fire department extinguishes the fire in teh poor man's house, the lanlord is the one who benefits the most. When the landlord's own home catches fire, it's a lot bigger, newer, and more expensive house.
The FAA does absolutely nothing for the poor man, who doesn't fly. Only the middle class and up fly, and the middle class usually does so seldomly. The semitractors that do all the damage to roads and bridges are owned by the rich. The rich benefit the most fro taxes and should pay a higher rate.
The fact that Mitt Romney pays half the tax rate that I, a middle class man pays, is an outrage. Reagan made an enemy of me when he slashed the capital gains tax and released an orgy of hostile corporate takeovers. My employer was targeted and our hours were cut 30% so the company could fund the fight against Bain Capital, who wanted to buy it, fire us workers, and sell the assets off at a profit. That firm, and the last Republican Presidential candidate, are parasites on society. Why do we allow such outrageous behavior?
Ted Cruz is the child of Cuban immigrants. He was born in Cuba and educated at Princeton.
He was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada (BTW, Alberta is increasingly referred to as the "Texas" of Canada").
His father is a Cuban immigarant, now a naturalized US citizen, and his mother is American, born in Delaware.
I too, think he'd make a great president.
That is all.
So I use my own mail server, and GMail ,and Yahoo!
If I want to access my mail virtually anywhere i can get a signal, I need something 'out there' to do it. And if the government declares that anything left on a server for more than 6 months is fair game, they are either telling me to give up on 6 month old mail if I want it to be safe from the Government's prying tentacles, or move it somewhere offline, which limits its usefulness greatly.
So why should I accept the Government's assertion of their right to access my personal communications, without a warrant or any oversight, merely because I store it somewhere they declare to be in any way accessible to them because it is remote to me?
More importantly, however, is the problem I would have securing a server of my own in an expedient and reasonable manner. I could run a server at my home, and challenge the Government's assertion that they can access *my* server just because it is accessible to me alone over the Internet. But my ISP would like to bill me a lot more money for me to do so. Why should I jump through that hoop and find, in the end, that the Government will only change their tune and declare my server is also covered by their self0asserted 'right' to read my email etc. merely because that's the way it works.
Not much different than the Government claiming that my physical postal mail is subject to inspection because it is, for some time, outside the control of both the sender and receiver. Wait, postal law mostly prevents that.
Why not extend the principles of postal law to electronic communications also?
Once again, proof the Constitution is intended to limit Government, not the people.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Thieves would not "obviously" prefer to rob rich people, because those people will have better security through dogs, alarms, safes, etc... No, the poor rob the poor again and again, and poorer neighborhoods are MUCH more likely to need constant police patrols to keep the level of riffraff low. If your argument is to make the people that benefit from it pay more for it, then you are essentially arguing for regressive taxes on police, fire departments, hospitals, schools, etc...
Yes, and as a general rule, heavier vehicles consume more fuel (and so pay more taxes) per mile driven.
Wear and tear on roads is expressed as the 4th power of the weight. A 4000 pound truck is 20 times as heavy as an (American) bicyclist, but it does 80,000 times as much damage to the road surface. So no, pickups and SUVs, much less real truckers, don't pay their fair share of road maintenance through gas taxes.
Texas' GDP is about $1.14 trillion, its state budget $193 billion. That means the government must be raking in about 17% of all economic activity, somehow.
For Massachussetts, the figures are $350 bn and $32 bn, respectively, so the Taxachussets state government spends barely 9% of its state's wealth. In California it's only 8%. In New York, 12%.
Yes, the Texas state gov't spends a higher proportion of its GDP than any of those 'blue' states. So it's hardly a shining example of small government at work.
What saves it from having to tax more than practically any other state in the union is, of course, oil. That's nice for Texans, but it won't last forever. The problem is, they seem to imagine they're enjoying the benefits of fiscal prudence and common-sense small government, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
The only way to really protect our online privacy is to use a service where the servers aren't governed by US laws. I've been using one for emails and web surfing that's based in Switzerland. Check it out at forhisglory@pvivacyabroad.com.