Slashdot Mirror
US House Passes Bill Requiring Warrants To Search Old Emails (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Monday to require law enforcement authorities to obtain a search warrant before seeking old emails from technology companies, a win for privacy advocates fearful the Trump administration may work to expand government surveillance powers. The House passed the measure by a voice vote. But the legislation was expected to encounter resistance in the Senate, where it failed to advance last year amid opposition by a handful of Republican lawmakers after the House passed it unanimously. Currently, agencies such as the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission only need a subpoena to seek such data from a service provider.
yet again. It's sad.
Didn't realize the constitution applied only to recent correspondence...
So now they need to get a rubber stamp to get into old emails. I really don't see the difference, instead of getting the subpoena rubber stamped, they need a magistrate judge (non-appointed rubber stamper) to stamp them. This is an insulting joke.
This would NOT be an issue in this same way if we were allowed to retrain physical possession of our email. That would put the 9 points on OUR side.
Let me illustrate by example of how Gmail could work. There could be an option to store the email on our own computers. Generous as the google is with their storage allocation, I have way more than that in my OWN physical possession and I could, if allowed, possess my own email there.
This could even be done in a way that is compatible with Gmail's business model. If I elect to use the option of local storage, then I would agree to run a special kind of search program on my computer. That search program would then issue search queries to the google's ad servers and, without ever examining my email on their servers, the appropriate advertisements could be served to my computer. (In my case, that means to be ignored, since I have a personal policy against feeding the google now that they've clearly gone to the dark side. Latest evidence I've read was in How Google Works .)
If the google actually valued my privacy, they could throw in an option to encrypt the email end-to-end, even while it is on their servers. That could include while it is on their services for backup purposes, too, which would mean that they would never have any "possession" of the clear text version of my personal email, and I would retain the possession of the decryption key. If the House of so-called Representatives then wanted to read my email, they might need to consider the actual Bill of Rights. You know, the stuff about warrants and probable cause and all that jazz.
Oh well. Nobody expects the Email Inquisition. Y'all have a nice day, hear?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Your post didn't indicate one way or the other if you know this already, but until everybody moved to Gmail, most email was stored locally (except for @yahoo and a few minor ones). Your mail program would use a protocol called POP3 to download the new email from the server, then the server would delete it. You can still do it that way.
The disadvantage of local storage is that it's either stored on your laptop or your phone or whatever, so it's not accessible anywhere and everywhere with just POP3. If you want it accessible from multiple devices, you set up your own IMAP server (or get own from a trusted provider).
> > This would NOT be an issue in this same way if we were allowed to retrain physical possession of our email.
> You know you ARE "allowed to retain lhysical possession of your email" - that's POP3
>> Yes I know quite well.
Okay so when you wrote "if we were allowed to retrain physical possession of our email" and all that crap, you DID know it was bullshit. You just felt like pretending that you have to store your email with Google, even though you know better, for your silly rant.
Now that it's been pointed out that your claims are factually false, you want to pretend your "deep". Maybe if you're a *really* deep thinker, your alternative facts will become real, right? LSD might help too.
Don't you love all of the GOP bashing even though the GODDAMN BILL WAS WRITTEN BY A REPUBLICAN?
You want to give Trump an extra 4 years? Keep bashing and invalidating people who are trying to do good things.
This article is shit. Where's the actual votes? How can you bash the GOP as if you know they ALL opposed it? Do we know what Democrats tried to oppose it and sell out their country? No? Nah, let's ignore them because it messes with "Muh Narrative."
Here's a link with more detail than the OP's article and the plumb sum of every comment here too:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
It doesn't have the votes talled yet. (And the article didn't even mention the fucking bill HR number?) But it's got the list of cosponsers which is a pretty obvious indicator of SUPPORTERS of the bill.
64 Republicans
44 Democrats.
What's that? What? MORE REPUBLICANS cosponsered the bill? No! Surely, the GOP's only goal is to "Take Muh Freedoms!", remember?
Goddamn. Everyone posting here who whines about "The System" doesn't realize their freaking ignorance and blind "Support the Team!" politics are the reason this country is so damn gridlocked in the first place.
And I say all of this as a both-side voting, MODERATE. But nah, feel free to disregard my actual facts under the "He's probably a just Nazi" routine and continue ignoring the GOP people helping you (and ignoring the crimes of the Democrats who DON'T help you). That'll sure make the USA a better place.
The guy thinks every mundane thought he has is so "deep", and when you and I, and others, point out he's factually incorrect, that's only because we're not on his level of deep meditation.
10 to 1 says he'll come down in a couple hours, after the acid/shrooms/laced weed wears off.
Your inline approach is obviously confrontational. Might be sincere, too, but I doubt it, so I just scanned your reply before deciding to ignore it.
I've concluded that my proposed solution to one part of the problem has obscured the deeper issue of "possession". Even though Gmail may be the specific email service where privacy is most abused and even though (I believe) there is no good reason for that abuse, the discussion should be redirected back to the original topic of "Possession is STILL 9 points of the law".
I guess I should thank you [592200] for changing the subject when you diverted the discussion, but perhaps I should have simply said that I am not interested in that new subject. Upon reflection, I guess your real point is that you are a Luddite of some sort? You agree with me about the importance of possession and miss the old days when we had more direct control over our email? Or something.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
That'sv true.
A *hint* as to whether your email is actually deleted or not is if the provider delivers 100 spams a day to you (possibly marked with a header for you to use), or if they filter spam out pretty well.
An old-school provider who lets you see *all* of your spam, and maybe marks it with a Spamassassin score, is *less likely* to be retaining it. It takes ten times as much resources to retain if spam isn't filtered out first.
I have been robbed multiple times. I fail to see how any of these gee-whiz powers would have helped to catch the thieves.
My simple recommendation? (As has also been mentioned elsewhere), use GPG, PHP, or some other form of encryption.. While not a perfect solution, it should prove adequate to the majority of end-user privacy needs. Waiting for the government or a free internet email provider to protect your privacy is not unlike waiting for a burglar to return your stolen property.
Damned Android auto-correct.
The option of keeping a lot of email on a server for a long time due to the acoustically coupled modem limitations needed legal protection.
....???
In 2017 your ISP email account is as legal protected as your home computer with all its files....
Email kept only at home on a computer, email that stayed on an ISP or server for years or just been networked along day or hours later. Email later found on some server when the server was under investigation with valid court paperwork for the server, accounts.
The other aspect is email on the move along the pipes and tubes of a providers network. Can a police charity public/private partnership scan every email and attachment to see if every file, link was under investigation by law enforcement or might be of interest to law enforcement in real time?
If that file was on a server for days or years or just moving from an account to another internet user?
Now all emails are been scanned at the server level anyway by different agencies globally for a lot of different reasons.
Police charity public/private partnerships will still have the server side real time scans of all files.
An easy FISA warrant or NSL will still get in, then allowing for legal, local domestic legal work.
The FISA warrant or NSL won't be used in a domestic court setting but if every US provider is in some way connected to other nations why not collect it all...
With new raw data sharing rules, domestic agencies will get all that raw bulk data, no more minimisation for domestic US users.
So new domestic privacy laws are great but as many other domestic agencies are now getting raw real time data
NSA to share data with other agencies without “minimizing” American information (1/13/2017)
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Once upon a time slashdot would have rejoiced at news like this. The notion that privacy is serious and given precedence- celebrated. Now we have page after page of politics, and drivel about this not being good enough. This is a win. Requiring warrants is as good as it gets. Be happy.
Z^1
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Z^2
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Z^3
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Z^4
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Z^5
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Yeah, somehow busts the myth that Republicans are against privacy and for an intrusive law enforcement all in the name of security
What myth? That's not even a debate. They ARE against privacy and support intrusive law enforcement. Many democrats are as well. That has a lot more to do with people in power wanting to retain that power than it does with any given political persuasion. Republicans have zero concern for your privacy if money can be made from it or political power (including policing) can be derived from stepping on it. Democrats have somewhat different motivations and tactics but the effect on your privacy tends to be similar in the end.
The only thing really protecting your privacy and keeping police away is that the two parties cannot agree on the details. When they do agree on the details we get idiotic outcomes like the TSA or the Department of Homeland Security.
Let me illustrate by example of how Gmail could work. There could be an option to store the email on our own computers. Generous as the google is with their storage allocation, I have way more than that in my OWN physical possession and I could, if allowed, possess my own email there.
There IS an option to store your email on your own computer. There always has been. That option didn't go away just because Gmail came along. Gmail is a choice, not a requirement.
If the google actually valued my privacy, they could throw in an option to encrypt the email end-to-end, even while it is on their servers.
Expecting an advertising company to value your privacy is an idiotic thing to do. Nobody is going to value your privacy more than you do. If it matters to you then take measures to secure it. The tools exist and have for a long time. If you use Gmail that is a tacit admission that you don't care so much about the privacy of whatever is sent through that email account.
Uhhhh, the entire purpose of email is to send it to other people. Perhaps hundreds of other people. How do you retrain [sic] possession of something you must distribute to others for it to be of any value?
True but perhaps the wrong question. The important question to my mind is how do you secure the message (legally and/or technologically) against intrusive snooping by the government and perhaps others? Both in transit and in storage. Not an easy question to answer and I think the legal piece of it is very important and somewhat behind the technology.
This never would have happened with Obama
The GOP passes a special interest bill to cover their business buddies. Nothing new there.
HOUSE: "We will pass a law that requires law enforcement agencies to get a "warrant" to access emails."
SENATE: "Okay."
HOUSE: (whispering) "You're supposed to say no. Remember? We don't really want this, we just want to "look" like we want it."
SENATE: (whispering) "But then we'll look like a-holes."
HOUSE: (still whispering) "Look, next month you can propose something good and we will vote it down. Okay?"
SENATE: "Can it be something on women's rights?"
HOUSE: "Yes. Whatever."
SENATE (clears throat) "We mean absolutely not. We would never let this law pass." (snickers).
COURTS: (leaning I from behind a curtain and whispering) "You know we totally would have granted anyone a warrant who asked. Just saying."
DOJ: (also leaning in) "And we just ask for permission. We get it anyway."
Doesn't mean a thing until / unless passed by the senate and signed by the president. If the president won't sign, then there is yet another process to go through.
So while yes, this isn't a bad thing as it stands, it is not yet a good thing.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
what's the problem with you?
you keep posting this 'z' bullshit.
what the fuck??
(are you a child or brain damaged? or both?)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Honestly, the party is split on this. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, among others
The only differences are whether they think the government should step on your neck or whether private industry should serve that role. The old school republicans tend to be in the former camp while the so-called libertarian wing tends to be in the later but there isn't a bright line between the camps. Both of them are perfectly happy to sacrifice your privacy and civil rights any time they think they can gain political power and frankly it's kind of a distinction without a difference since they tend to vote in lock-step anyway.
What's even more WTF is that someone keeps modding him up for it.
Republicans can haz trade security for privacy: Republicans can haz hatred of safety
Republicans can haz trade privacy for security: Republicans can haz hatred of your rights.
apparently being totally oblivious to the irony.
The guy was NOT threatening 4 more years of Trump (but clearly your partisan hackery took you directly to that whacko assumption). The guy was trying to point out that this sort of garbage was a large contributor to the energizing of the people who turned-out to vote for Trump and that continuing down the same toxic partisan path which the left are doing with great reckless abandon will only serve to further energize those Trump supporters.
Keep it up, fuzzball.
Z^6
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Z^7
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.