Slashdot Mirror


Secret Text In Senate Bill Would Give FBI Warrantless Access To Email Records (theintercept.com)

mi quotes a report from The Intercept: A provision snuck into the still-secret text of the Senate's annual intelligence authorization would give the FBI the ability to demand individuals' email data and possibly web-surfing history from their service providers using those beloved 'National Security Letters' -- without a warrant and in complete secrecy. [The spy bill passed the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, with the provision in it. The lone no vote came from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who wrote in a statement that one of the bill's provisions "would allow any FBI field office to demand email records without a court order, a major expansion of federal surveillance powers." If passed, the change would expand the reach of the FBI's already highly controversial national security letters. The FBI is currently allowed to get certain types of information with NSLs -- most commonly, information about the name, address, and call data associated with a phone number or details about a bank account. The FBI's power to issue NSLs is actually derived from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- a 1986 law that Congress is currently working to update to incorporate more protections for electronic communications -- not fewer. The House unanimously passed the Email Privacy Act in late April, while the Senate is due to vote on its version this week. "NSLs have a sordid history. They've been abused in a number of ways, including targeting of journalists and use to collect an essentially unbounded amount of information," Andrew Crocker, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote. One thing that makes them particularly easy to abuse is that recipients of NSLs are subject to a gag order that forbids them from revealing the letters' existence to anyone, much less the public.]

22 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. R.I.P. Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We should all be ashamed. We don't deserve freedom.

    1. Re:R.I.P. Land of the Free by whoozwah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. Those that didn't oppose this don't deserve freedom.

    2. Re:R.I.P. Land of the Free by thaylin · · Score: 2

      I am sure the majority oppose this, it is just the leaders, who are power hungry, who do not. then again certain parties and their "if you got nothing to hide" and "there has to be a balance" arguments have fooled me before.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:R.I.P. Land of the Free by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit.

      The majority hears 'it's for safety, you wouldn't want to help the terrorists kill children, would you' and, without a critical thought in their head, vote it and those leaders all the way to the courthouse.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:R.I.P. Land of the Free by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you really think that those things aren't going to happen? Have you seen anything in the post- USA PATRIOT Act Congressional history that says that this won't become law except for the loud noises made from a few 'fringe' Senators that actually give a damn about the Bill of Rights?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:R.I.P. Land of the Free by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      What, exactly, do you believe the (D) and (R) parties differ on, in areas like this? There are a few people on both sides that vehemently oppose laws like this, and are summarily pushed to the edge and called "kooks", and "extremists". And it works, because too many politicians are more concerned with getting reelected than doing what is right for our country.

      The problem is, we keep trading in our liberties, for the illusion of security, creating a monster state that has limitless power to enslave us all. I mean, if you're not doing anything wrong, what could you possibly want to hide?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:R.I.P. Land of the Free by mattwarden · · Score: 2

      Talking about the majority opinion as if it matters hurts individual liberty. The majority is irrelevant when we are talking about individual rights.

  2. US law needs to change by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any rider that is unrelated to the title or purpose of a bill should be automatically struck out. Maybe someone should slip this law in as a rider to another bill in order to make the point.

    1. Re:US law needs to change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Never going to happen because the people who could slip it in have a vest interest in keeping things the way they are.

    2. Re:US law needs to change by gurps_npc · · Score: 2

      Can't really do this, people find a way to claim it is related to anything.

      What they CAN do is give the original submitter of a bill veto power over all riders.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:US law needs to change by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      Under trump we will not let stuff like Warrants, due process, jury's, bans on waterboarding, etc get in our way.

    4. Re:US law needs to change by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes and under Hillary we just won't worry about words mean so any existing law can be used however she wants and rules won't apply to herself and people she likes. That sounds so much better sign me up.

      Honestly I don't understand how ANYONE can make the case the Hillary is different than Trump other than what "team" she purports to be playing for.

      Hillary contradicting herself for 13min on just about every current issue:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Look the only questions in this election are do you like the list Trump put forward for the SCOTUS candidates and do you want people like Paul Ryan to get legislation passed. If the answer is yes then vote for Trump because he isn't any worse than Hillary. The polls indicate he can actually win. If you abstain or vote for a third party you are effectively voting for Hillary that is the reality of the system.

      If you like what his happen in Washington right now vote HRC, but don't think for a second that makes you a more responsible person or anything of the sort. She isn't by any measure more qualified to be president than he is. She was unaccomplished as a Senator, and her tenure as sec State was nothing other than a string of failures and scandals. Having had an important job before that you performed terribly at isn't a qualification for promotion.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  3. The solution has been around for years. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    . . . .but J. Random User out there doesn't know of, much less use PGP or Gnu Privacy Guard. . .

    1. Re:The solution has been around for years. . . by CimmerianX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've had PGP for 7 years. In that time I've exchanged 2 keys..... and 1 belonged to my wife which I setup for her.

  4. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FOR TH by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dear Dipshit:

    Before spouting off nonsense and idiocy, please inform yourself on the workings of the Senate, or at least some basic information on which Senators sit on which committees. For example, when you specifically cite Senator Sanders as voting for this bill, you should probably not just make that up as that could be considered to be libel. To refute your absolutely false claim, I present you with the web site for the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which prominently features the roster of Senators that sit on that committee, and thus vote to advance a bill for the full Senate to vote on. Please note that Senator Sanders is not among them, and also please note that this bill has not been debated on the Senate floor, much less voted to end debate, much less voted on final passage.

    Thank you, go take a god damn civics class, and don't post on anything happening in the Congress again until you do.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  5. Fourth Amendment vs. Second Amendment! by darthsilun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If only there was an organization that was as rabid about upholding the Fourth Amendment as the NRA is about the Second Amendment.

    1. Re:Fourth Amendment vs. Second Amendment! by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Amen.

      EFF, EFA, BMLP, RT4CHICAGO, ICANN, there are others. Know, understand, and support them.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Fourth Amendment vs. Second Amendment! by kqs · · Score: 2

      ACLU is quite rabid about protecting the Fourth, First, etc. The problem is that they have a tiny fraction of the NRA's budget. The problem is that people like talking but aren't so fond of putting money where their mouth is.

  6. Mail in Australia by SeriousTube · · Score: 2

    My email provider, fastmail is in Australia so that should make it a little more difficult for them.

  7. Keep in mind this is illegal by shaitand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to bypass the requirement of a warrant under any circumstance. A member of congress having any part of this bill is treason.

  8. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FOR TH by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    For Complete safety, one must move to North Korea, where the Government dictates everything. And since you are against Liberty, I suggest that is the perfect example of what a world without liberty looks like.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  9. Re:ZIP Encryption by CCarrot · · Score: 2

    It is like the right to bear guns: You will only have it as long as you exercise it.

    Indeed. Trouble is, we're running out of bears around here... ;-)

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant