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.'"
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.
You are correct. I work with people from all over the country. These people have had to move to Texas because they couldn't find jobs in their original state. All of the, ALL of them absolutely love it here, even though they hate the weather nine months out of the year (Michiganders don't do well at 105). Most simply can't believe the freedom that they have here that they never knew they missed where they came from. "You mean I can just walk into a Walmart and buy a shotgun?" "I won't get arrested for having a gun rack on my truck?" "My state vehicle inspection was only $15. Where do I pay the rest of it?" "Why do people keep calling me offering me jobs that pay more money. Is this some sort of scam?" And finally, "I think there is a mistake. The company didn't take out for my state income tax."
Don't listen to these other yahoos. They are mad because the majority of Texans value freedom and values over a strong central government and political correctness. Our education system is fine. The negative numbers they'll throw at you is due to the fact that Texas has one of the largest non-English speaking student population in the country. As for property tax, yeah, it's high, but it's nothing compared to the income taxes paid in other states. And to the AC that said that Texas is anti-science has no idea what he's talking about. Texas has one of the largest tech sectors in the country. "Texas" is even in the name of many of these tech companies. "Texas Instruments" ring a Dell... I mean BELL?
Texas is an awesome place to live, provided all our imports don't use their voting power to turn Texas into the places they came from.
and yes, Ted Cruz would make an awesome president. It's amazing how these people try to paint him as the new leader of the Republican party. Cruz challenged and defeated Rick Perry's hand pick successor for Kay Bailey Hutchinson's Senate seat. He took on the Texas Republican political machine and won. It's funny that these liberals constantly scream for someone to change the Republican party, but as soon as someone does so, they do everything they can to vilify him. Ted Cruz is the child of Cuban immigrants. He was born in Cuba and educated at Princeton. But because he is the Texas Senator and his name ends with an (R), they paint him as some sort of ignorant, backwoods, hick.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
There is only one possible meaning, silly-head: there is some electronic record of the message being marked "read". (And if you didn't actually read it but it got marked read by accident, tough luck; it's not their fault the computerized equivalent of tearing open an envelope and not reading the letter only takes a bit of hesitation between two keystrokes.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
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?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-peanalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
Illiteracy is higher in California and New York State than in Texas.
http://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/StateEstimates.aspx
I'll leave it at that. Obviously, your statements are politically motivated fabrications.
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."
> in the case of a human child/embryo it has no choice and no voice
Do you understand what an embryo is? It doesn't think, suffer, feel or make choices of any kind. At 8 weeks, the nervous system is not at that stage yet. Equating an embryo to a human is almost like having an omelet and thinking you had fried chicken. 25% of embryos get spontaneously aborted by 6 weeks. By your definition, we have an avalanche of accidental deaths of full persons that overshadows deaths from any other cause. With elective abortions of embryos, we are not raising that by much.
A fetus is by definition, not a "child" as is convenient for you to frame as. But we can have a sane discussion here based on when the fetal capacity to suffer begins & develops self-awareness and draw moral/legal lines from that data. But if your positions are based on imaginary pre-scientific concepts such as "souls", there is no discussion to be had.
> yet perhaps you are happy for *millions* of murders to be carried out just so the mother can continue her lustful lifestyle?
You realize that married woman have abortions too, right? Are they being lustful? Many of the women seeking abortion are in monogamous relationships, even if unmarried. Do you also judge them as lustful? Do you consider fathers-to-be in these cases to also be lustful, or just mothers-to-be? A majority of women getting abortions are already mothers raising children who cannot handle one more, not party and one-night-stand types. A disproportionate number are poor at the time. Do you think it is moral to bring a child into a world when the mother is not in a position to provide a proper childhood yet? Are unplanned children statistically (don't care for anecdotes) poised to develop into superior citizens/human beings? Last one is rhetorical.
> Actually, I'm pro-choice
I doubt it. You sound like a conservative whose religious thought is in conflict with his libertarian thought. It just an association of political convenience, not philosophical parity. Don't bother with trying to reconcile them.
> That's the problem with young leftists, they believe in all diversities except the one that really matters - diversity of opinion.
When they do, they get branded as relativists with no moral compass who cannot be trusted. All that needs to be done is to base things on data at hand. When data changes, positions need to change. Diversity of opinion here is like giving a quack and a scientist equal time (and the left, with its New Age mumbo jumbo, is hardly spotless... but at least they don't impose those metaphysics on others). We can have standards of objectivity.
> to argue for enforcing your agenda on them shows the typical totalitarian streak of the political Left.
My position? Let women figure it out. Let them exclusively vote on whether it ought to be legal for them. Men don't get to choose. You can vote if you develop a uterus tomorrow. Do this sound totalitarian?