Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US House Passes Bill Requiring Warrants To Search Old Emails (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the internet-archive dept.

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.

30 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. No protection for old secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't realize the constitution applied only to recent correspondence...

  2. Possession is STILL 9 points of the law by shanen · · Score: 3

    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.
    1. Re:Possession is STILL 9 points of the law by shanen · · Score: 2

      What part of shallow and feeble were you [592200] unable to understand?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    2. Re:Possession is STILL 9 points of the law by shanen · · Score: 2

      Nothing except the willingness to spend the time and energy to understand all of the technical details and the time and money to implement them. If you put those barriers in front of all users of email, then you certainly will reduce the scope of the problem. Unfortunately, due to the network effects, the value of email would be greatly decreased.

      Oh wait. Doesn't even work. You would have to force each of your correspondents to learn the same things and expend the same amounts of time and money.

      Now I see that I have been drawn off chasing another shallow wild goose. I should have noticed the absence of any reference to "possession". Mea culpa.

      Let me try to correct the course: I am (I would think obviously) NOT denying that secure email exists. I am suggesting that it should be available even for the peasants who want to use such convenient systems as Gmail.

      My example was evidently not very helpful or even diversionary... I chose it largely because the google would claim they HAVE to (permanently) possess your email to provide the service, but the main point of "possession" is being lost. My proposed solution to that part of the problem has evidently obscured the problem...

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    3. Re:Possession is STILL 9 points of the law by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Your inline approach is obviously confrontational.

      My "inline approach" is how things were done before the Eternal September. If you find it confrontational for me to quote things you say and respond to them specifically, then stop saying such ridiculous things.

      so I just scanned your reply before deciding to ignore it.

      And in the spirit of ignoring my reply to you, you reply with a few hundred more words...

      the discussion should be redirected back to the original topic of "Possession is STILL 9 points of the law".

      This was one of your sillier and most irrelevant topics. "Nine points" refers to physical possession, not how law enforcement gains access to your email via warrants or subpoenas.

      I guess I should thank you [592200] for changing the subject when you diverted the discussion,

      I'm sorry, but what? You rambled on about keeping your email on your own servers and how gmail was evil for, whatever it was gmail was doing. I replied to that. Who diverted the discussion?

      Upon reflection, I guess your real point is that you are a Luddite of some sort?

      You truly are amazing.

      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.

      No, I'm simply pointing out that what you want is really not possible, but you can avoid the issues of gmail quite easily if you choose to. You cannot "retrain" control of your email when you've sent it out to other people, but you can run your own email server. The former means that you cannot stop others from divulging your email; the latter means you have the most control over whether a large corporation can hand your end of the email exchange over to law enforcement without proper procedures being followed. You want to keep possession of your email on your own server? Ok, run your own server. You want end-to-end encryption? Ok, run your own server. Seems like the solution you are demanding Google provide to you for free. Why are you not running off to implement it now that we've told you you can, instead of rambling on here?

    4. Re:Possession is STILL 9 points of the law by Gussington · · Score: 2

      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.

      .

      You might want to look up what the word 'ignore' means...

  3. That *is* how email worked until Gmail by raymorris · · Score: 2

    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).

    1. Re:That *is* how email worked until Gmail by shanen · · Score: 2

      Yes, I know that quite well. Do you know that there were protocols before POP3? Ever heard of SMTP, for example?

      Look, I don't want to berate you for the shallowness of your reply. I would like to encourage deep and thoughtful discussions, even on Slashdot. Your reply was not part of one of them, and was closer to the category of "If you have nothing to say, then..." At this point I think I would be delusional if I were seriously anticipating such discussions on Slashdot, but my excuse is that I sometimes write to clarify my own analyses and thoughts. It would be great if a deeper discussion developed, but I'm not expecting many of them.

      Still, you did manage to touch on a slightly deeper issue, though I had actually mentioned it tangentially in my comment. The encrypted backup on the google's servers could also be used to provide email access on all of your devices. It would be trickier to implement on portable devices with limited resources, but user options could let us decide the degree to which we wanted to risk our privacy (including via exposure to warrantless searches) in exchange for convenience. More could be said, but I'm going to turn to the deeper issue underlying the lack of choice:

      PROFIT! In order to absolutely maximize profits, companies like the google want to minimize costs by reducing your choices. Additional options would incur development and operational (including support) costs, so one of the many abuses of monopolists is that they prefer to force ALL of their customers to do everything in the most profitable way from THEIR perspective. The complicated reality is that the victims (AKA customers) are different and have different priorities and would exercise their freedom differently if they were allowed to. Our best hope for REAL improvements in Gmail would be a serious threat from a superior email service. Yahoo obviously failed to develop into such a threat, and though Microsoft or Apple still could, so far they are just preferring to copy the google's game plan as closely as possible.

      Me? I think freedom is more important than money. (Time is in between.)

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    2. Re:That *is* how email worked until Gmail by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      so one of the many abuses of monopolists

      Google does not have a monopoly on email. You are free to choose another service, or run your own. The fact that you do not tells us that this issue is really not that important to you.

      The complicated reality is that the victims (AKA customers) are different and have different priorities and would exercise their freedom differently if they were allowed to.

      Other than those whose employers demand the use of gmail, and who are paying for these services, gmail users are not customers of google. The customers are the ones who pay for the data that google gleans from their gmail service. So you are wrong in referring to gmail users as "customers". They are "data".

      You are also wrong in saying they are not allowed a choice. Nobody holds a gun to someone's head until they use gmail.

      Our best hope for REAL improvements in Gmail would be a serious threat from a superior email service.

      You are free to start one, if you think you can make a profit from providing free email services to others.

      Me? I think freedom is more important than money.

      Obviously not. The option of keeping your email (as much as is possible in the real world) on your own servers has existed for decades and still does. It costs more to do that than to use the "free" gmail services, however. Freedom or money, you takes your pick, and demonstrate which is more important when you do.

      I would like to encourage deep and thoughtful discussions, even on Slashdot.

      Also obviously not. You're ignoring the most basic facts about email while complaining about a free email service, and dismiss as "feeble" any attempts at educating you.

  4. Re: Republicans vote against safety... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Republicans realize they have more to fear from Trump reading their emails than Obama...

    No, they just had Obama promising to veto any such thing. Republicans tabled all sorts of legislation because of that obstructionism. Which is fine. It's supposed to be an adversarial relationship, between those two co-equal branches of government.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  5. Showing your bias, eh? by ckatko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Showing your bias, eh? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      You seem to be awfully angry about something. I can't tell what it is you're angry about because you seem to have replied to a post on this thread which doesn't actually exist. Either that or you've just invented a post which is a mismash of every slashdot stereotype and replied angrily to that. That's fair enough, there's a fine history of people doing that here.

      it is however customary to mark such posts by signing off with "mod me down, I've got karma to burn".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  6. Re:Republicans vote against safety... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

    yet again. Sad!

    Fixed that for you.

  7. Possession is STILL 9 points of the law by shanen · · Score: 2

    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.
  8. Re:Rubber Stamp by borcharc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your comment is very presumptuous about both my point and my views. I don't care about NSL's or FISA warrants. I don't care about going after terrorists or enemy combatants. I care about Americans in America who the government is abusing. I care about real people, whom I have personally spoken with, who have and are facing these issues, not people in some thought experiment. Some of them are non-Abrahamic religious minorities that the government seems obsessed with, mostly due to a lack of understanding of their religion. People and causes you have never heard about...

    I care about warrants issued by in district courts that function as rubber stamps. I read search warrants every day and more then you may suspect are very weak. They have a very diluted view on what probable cause is. These warrants are generally sealed and in many cases the subject of them is never notified that they were the subject of a search. I am not just talking about electronic records; mail, cars, homes are all searched in this way. I think you would be shocked at the number of packages that both state and federal search warrants are obtained for and are not found to contain anything illegal. In these cases the package is repacked and delivered to the recipient without notification. These searches as documented in my local courts are no more accurate than a coin toss. But if you are on the wrong side of the coin toss, good luck, your life just got incredibly difficult.

    If someone wants to make you a target than all an agent of the government needs is to claim to have been identified by an informant, that claim alone passes as probable cause in this world. The "informant" is never made available to the judge for questioning, they just take the agents word for it. The records of this search could stay sealed for years but don't expect a notification when its unsealed if you are an unknowing subject of one. As for subpoenas, they are rubber stamped, they are not subject to judicial review. The government just issues them to themselves. The court only gets involved if you say no.

    As for something that impacts me, if a warrant is actually supported by probable cause, and the judge makes an inquiry into the facts of the matter, then I am cool with it being issued. What more often happens is the judge reads the application and signs it. When you fail to be skeptical, then you become a rubber stamp. I believe that it should be very hard for the government to invade your privacy or convict you of a crime. Our society has given the government far too much latitude in these matters and it needs to be rolled back.

  9. A simple recommendation. by mmell · · Score: 2
    As has been mentioned elsewhere, it is not necessary to master the technical hurdles present to set up a private email server. If you choose to use a free email service such as Gmail, you must accept the limitation that they have never guaranteed the privacy of their service. This, in turn, gives the government a valid argument that since the emails are not already truly private they should be subject to inspection by government agencies.

    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.

  10. Email and your new acoustically coupled modem by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    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"
  11. Re:Republicans vote against safety... by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The house is majority Republican. It is the Republicans that just passed this privacy measure

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  12. Re:Republicans vote against safety... by unixisc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, somehow busts the myth that Republicans are against privacy and for an intrusive law enforcement all in the name of security

  13. Sad state of slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Rubber Stamp by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even a rubber stamp is useful for documenting a trail of who did what and their claimed reasons. Far better than not documenting it, and will make people think twice about having a look just for fun/blackmail.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  15. Re: Public masturbation of 2726007 by shanen · · Score: 2

    Z^1

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  16. Re: Public masturbation of 592200 by shanen · · Score: 2

    Z^2

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  17. Re: Public masturbation of 592200 by shanen · · Score: 2

    Z^3

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  18. Re: Public masturbation of 592200 by shanen · · Score: 2

    Z^4

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  19. Re: Public masturbation of 592200 by shanen · · Score: 2

    Z^5

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  20. Re:Republicans vote against safety... by Gussington · · Score: 2

    Yeah, somehow busts the myth that Republicans are against privacy and for an intrusive law enforcement all in the name of security

    Myth? You do realise the whole NSA/Snowden spying and torture thing occurred under Republican watch yeah?
    I'm not saying Dems are any better, but let's not get too carried away here...

  21. Re:It's about power by unixisc · · Score: 2

    Honestly, the party is split on this. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, among others, are Libertarian leaning, while Little Marco is all for an intrusive government. Trump - well, after the leaks as well as the 'dossier', is probably against privacy violations as well, even if he supports it for national security exemptions

  22. Re: Public masturbation of 592200 by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

    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."
  23. Re: Republicans vote against safety... by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 2

    Maybe you misread the summary? A similar measure passed the house unanimously last year, but was blocked in the senate "amid opposition by a handful of Republican lawmakers." They could easily have overridden a veto. But they never let it get that far, and it was Republicans who blocked it.

    I won't draw any partisan conclusions from that. It clearly had strong support in both parties, and most Republicans supported it. But trying to blame Obama doesn't fit the facts.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."