Slashdot Mirror
Bipartisan Bill Would Mandate Warrant To Search Emails
jfruh writes: Bills were introduced into both the House and Senate yesterday that would amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, requiring a warrant to search Americans' email messages stored on third-party servers even if they're more than 180 days old. The current version of the law was passed in 1986, and was written in an environment where most email users downloaded emails to their computer and erased them after reading them.
America calls itself the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
We need to make sure laws are in place to protect our freedom, even if it does mean reduced security. We as a culture should be brave enough to deal with the fact we may have less than perfect protection as so we can have our liberty.
We have law enforcement groups doing their job, and asking for more powers, because they want to do their job to the best of their abilities. However we as a culture will need to go. We know this could cost lives, but our freedom is more important, than the risks.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Nah it is general politics.
The general population is getting weary of government surveillance.
The President got on record defending such actions.
So the republicans will side with this just to go against the President.
The Democrats need to distant themselves from the incumbent president so the party will have new talking points during the next election, as position themselves as more moderate than their GOP counterparts.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If a warrant is required, its generally granted. If its not granted, the FISA courts could be used. and if the FISA courts with their 99% rate of acceptance should fail, then most multinational corporations have no objection to forfeiting every document youve written and word you've uttered to local state and federal authorities on principal. In some cases, like telecom, theyre outright exempted from prosecution through blatant legislative mandate and their own kangaroo system of arbitration courts. in others, you'll never know they were the ones to divulge your information thanks to a rats nest of NDA agreements and lack of transparency.
Looking to congress and senate to ensure your security and freedom on the internet is as blind and misplaced as looking to the executioner to ensure your meals at the prison are healthy. https://prism-break.org/ is a collection of open source projects and applications with the altruistic, express intent to preserve your security and safety. Its not governed by politics, or election cycles, or "terror." It doesnt concede to stakeholders, doesnt serve to appease shareholders, and doesnt ask for your personal information. The internet doesnt need a bill or writ of law to protect its users, because its users have been iron clad in an armory of their own device for more than 30 years. Use crypto, study privacy, and enjoy a free internet.
Good people go to bed earlier.
You mean like it was before 9/11.
Because the bill was idiotic ... wow, it's been on a server, you must have abandoned it and therefor we don't need a warrant.
Right, because it should be totally OK for police to rifle through your stuff without legal authorization.
It's about time they started enforcing the 4th amendment ... maybe we're finally starting to see some common sense and sanity applied to this stuff.
Now if they can tackle the institutionally authorized perjury which is "parallel construction", we'll be getting somewhere.
It's time to remind law enforcement that they are not, in fact, above the law.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Why would then need to distance themselves from the president to be seen as more moderate than the insane far-right-wing Republicans?
The Oberton Window has shifted to the right in America. What used to be "insane far-right-wing" is now considered normal, and what used to be centrist is now considered communist. Consider Obamacare: The policy behind it was originally proposed by Republicans, and it is to the right of the health care proposal put forward a generation ago by that pinko Richard Nixon.
... except in the case of email. By passing this law, aren't they implying that email (and therefore all other electronic communications) aren't already covered by the 4th Amendment?
How about passing a bill that gives mandatory minimum sentences for violating the Constitution?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The current version of the law was passed in 1986, and was written in an environment where most email users downloaded emails to their computer and erased them after reading them.
I *still* POP my mail down to my home PC from my ISP and Gmail, though I still have to periodically log into Gmail and purge "deleted" messages (what part of Delete don't you understand Google?) And, no, I don't read personal email elsewhere. And, no, I don't have a smartphone. Not a Luddite, just don't need to be *that* connected.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It's fashionable to shit on politicians no matter what they do, but I very much tire of "HarUMPH this does not go far ENOUGH!!!".
But here's my question- is this bill just like, a great thing that we should have, or is there some hidden aspect to it (ex: if it had language that allowed for warrants to be issued automatically)?
Because if it doesn't, super party and yay. If it does, presumably we'll hear about it soon enough.
How do you figure? That's a crock. Overall, the country has shifted more left, not right, over the last many decades, which has simply brought more people out from the Right to complain; so the right feels more extreme. If you're too young to remember what it was like in the '70s or '80s, you might have that mistaken impression that this is a more conservative country than it was before. It's not. And insane far left wingers match insane far right wingers. There are too many far wingers, period.
1) Government is larger than ever before. There are more social programs than ever before.
2) Politicians discuss/argue and vote over gay marriage, something even Democrats would not have touched with a 20 ft pole 20+ years ago. The fact that right wingers cite religious objections isn't anything new, and both parties would've balked at the notion.
3) Media: A really good way to get the pulse of the times. Have you even watched television, or listened to radio? What would've have been vehemently censored before is now commonplace, and no topic is off limits. There are dedicated channels for minorities and alternate lifestyles. Media is much more liberal than ever. (despite protestations from the likes of Dan Quayle)
Obamacare was rejected by the right because they were shut out of much of the process by a majority D 111th congress, the public option was dropped, and because it was rushed through; no one knew exactly what was in it's 10,000+ pages.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Far better, for privacy, if technological solutions (email encryption) protected the privacy of email.
If it's just protected with bills like this, it does nothing to stop programs like the DoD/NSA's "collect everything" projects; and from there it's only a small step for one agency to assist parallel reconstruction to get around the warrant.
Better for everyone's privacy if the bill stated "You have no expectation of privacy for unencrypted email. Any unencrypted email is free for anyone - law enforcements, ad-agencies, spammers - to read. If you want it private, encrypt it.".
The tools exist (GPG, S/MIME). It's just that no-one uses them because they trust policies to protect them instead. If the policies would change, every corporation would insist on encrypted emails by default -- and the email tool vendors would quickly make that the easy/default option.
Better would be one that required the same for searching headers and other meta-data for all live and store-and-forward communication, including snail-mail, and one which would ban retention of this information by carriers after it is no longer needed for delivery- or billing-, or legitimate tracking purposes.
In other words, stop the US Post Office from keeping the to/from information from mailed items for more than a few weeks after the item was delivered (you need to keep it a few weeks in case a customer claims it was never delivered). Similar, force phone companies to delete calling data after the bill has been paid and any bill-dispute time-period has elapsed UNLESS the customer has signed up to have the carrier keep such records.
Is this gonna happen soon? Of course not - it may never happen as long as our country exists in its current form (i.e. all bets are off if there is ever a revolution - which I am *NOT* advocating) - but I still want it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Consider Obamacare: The policy behind it was originally proposed by Republicans
I'm grateful that Obama and Congress got together and passed RomneyCare.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Oh, people propose reasonable bills all the time. It is what is done to them next that one will recognize as our congress...
No one in Washington gives a damn about the US Constitution anymore. It won't pass.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Claiming that politics have gone in ANY direction is a facetious statement at best and misinformed, to say the least.
This country is not any more leftist than it is any more rightist which it isn't. This country is corporatist, which means that whether anyone anywhere politically is in power the vested interests are going to support corporations which benefit either way.
So whether you have democrat a, republican b, it doesn't really matter unless you fail to understand where the real politics is.
If you're too young to remember what it was like in the '70s or '80s ...
In the 1970s the government controlled the airlines, the trucking industry, etc., and many people thought that was a good idea that should be expanded to other parts of the economy. Today, nobody seriously believes that.
The fact that right wingers cite religious objections isn't anything new
Actually, it is. What is today called the "religious right" was through most of our history the "religious left". Religious fervor was long associated with progressive politics. The Scopes Monkey trial was prosecuted by none other than William Jennings Bryan, the original SJW.
A secret warrant.
From a secret court.
Under authority of secret laws.
Or alternately secret interpretations of secret laws.
The secret warrant has a secrecy requirement to gag anyone from telling of the warrant's existence.
Breaching the secrecy can result in secret arrests in the middle of the night by secret agents of agencies that must remain secret.
Any secret trials may use secret evidence and secret testimony that the defense is not allowed to see or refute.
But at least a warrant will be required. Whew! I feel safer already.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Sadly, I suspect you're right. Just like how when Obama said he was pro-vaccines you suddenly have all these Republicans sounding off about how they don't need the federal government sticking needles in our babies. I imagine if Obama said he thought it was wrong to rape puppies, you'd get Ron Paul ranting about how what a man does to his property is none of the federal government's business.
After a secret conviction you may end up in a secret prison.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
"The ECPA was written in 1986 and its provisions have been used by law enforcement to claim the right to access emails older than 180 days without a probable cause warrant." With that kind of logic, wouldn't they have the right to search, without a warrant, anything that you've owned for more than 180 days? Since when has there been an expiration date on the expectation of privacy?
Are you kidding? In the '70s we still had unions. Both the Republicans and Democrats moved to outsource labor which has now mostly neutered the unions. The "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot talked about came to pass. And since then wages have stagnated except for those at the top.
Except the Democrats shifted RIGHT. Remember when unions actually made some difference? I do. Did the Democrats do anything to fight the "giant sucking sound" of jobs being outsourced? Remember who signed NAFTA?
Pretty much yeah. Obvious bills with wide support are easy targets for getting increasingly unrelated and extreme amendments in.
Underrated. The word is "Oligarchy."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with encryption. Encryption is simply hardening a boundary.
If I put a letter in an envelope, you getting to it is utterly trivial -- the use of one fingernail. But that doesn't in any way erode my expectation of privacy. If, on the other hand, I encrypt the letter, all I've done is harden the boundary -- my expectation is still the same: I don't think you have a right to access that letter.
If I close the front door to my house, but I don't lock it, I'm NOT inviting you in. I expect you to knock, and to wait. If I lock the door, I have hardened the boundary, but I have not in any way changed the why of my expectations. If I then add a bar and hooks, I have further hardened the boundary, but the basic point remains exactly the same: My expectation is that you will knock and wait. As long as you meet my expectation, none of that hardening would have any effect upon you. The only ones who are affected by hardened boundaries are those who sunder our expectations.
If a woman wears a dress, is she giving us permission to look up it? Obviously not.
Clearly, "because you can", is insufficient justification to "just do it."
It's not about the envelope. It's not about the lock. It's not about encryption. It's not about the dress.
It's about mutually understood social boundaries. The scam the government is constantly trying to pull is pretending that hardening is the issue, rather than social boundaries. They are doing what governments do, which is constantly strain to accrue more power. If they are not restrained in this process, they will do so -- regardless of the expense to our rights, liberties, and social expectations.
I cordially invite everyone to read this. Carefully.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.