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.
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...
If a privacy bill makes it harder to catch corrupt legislators, then you can be pretty sure it is going to pass.
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."
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
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!
Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and therefore Constitutionally prohibited from running for President of the United States.
He was born to two American citizens, making him a naturalized citizen of the United States. That's something that the "birthers" could never quite grasp. Even if Obama had been born in Kenya, it would not have kept him from being President as his mother was an American Citizen.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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?
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?
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."
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."
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.
There is only one possible meaning, silly-head: there is some electronic record of the message being marked "read".
You're probably right, but it makes no sense. If you receive a letter and open it, that doesn't give the government the right to read it. The lack of protection for email is completely at odds with the Supreme Court's usual "reasonable expectation of privacy" requirement.
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like opening a letter and then leaving it open, taped to your mailbox outside. Anyone walking down the street can then read it, including the government.
When email worked the way it use to, and you use to download it from the server and removed it from the server - that would be like you take a letter into your house, and then read it, and keep it inside your house. THEN you could expect privacy. But the way the majority of people use email changed, yet people still expected the same amount of privacy - which isn't reasonable.
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like opening a letter and then leaving it open, taped to your mailbox outside. Anyone walking down the street can then read it, including the government.
No it isn't. You've stretched that metaphor too far. You can't read someone else's email (even if it's left on the server (a la IMAP)) without cooperation from the provider or directly hacking the account.
A better metaphor is a PO box. Previously, stuff left in a PO box for 180 days is arguably abandoned. However, now the PO box company has upgraded their service to treat the PO box more like a locker (IMAP), where you can store your stuff and access it when you want it. It's no longer reasonable to say that stuff left in a locker that you frequently use is abandoned after 180 days.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like...
... is like not taking explicit action to delete the email from the server.
No need for complicated analogies when the situation isn't that complicated.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like opening a letter and then leaving it open, taped to your mailbox outside. Anyone walking down the street can then read it, including the government.
If that is really how your email provider operates, I think you need to find a new provider. Because you are telling us that once you've read it, if you keep it on their server, you no longer need a username/password to access it.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-