Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,097
Reaction score
8,847
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...ithout-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,097
Reaction score
8,847
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
Revised bill highlights

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...ithout-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title
 

PorterStarrByrd

nutruring tomorrows criminals today
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
33,701
Reaction score
2,013
Location
Moose Creek, Maine
reading a book about the early beginnings of the KGB right now ..got to be careful to pay attention to what I am reading to remember whether I am reading that .. or this.


not worried though ... Comrade Obama will protect our rights by not letting this happen. :)
 
Last edited:

Magdalen

Petulantly Penitent
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
6,372
Reaction score
1,566
Location
Insignificant
So in the near future I can expect to receive Emails with portions redacted, just like the families of soldiers during WW2?

WTF???
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Somebody call the government. They'll protect us!



Oh, wait...
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,212
Reaction score
15,820
Location
Australia.
Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

Unless you're - yanno - Not American.


*sigh*

If you prick us, do we not bleed?
 

icerose

Lost in School Work
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
11,549
Reaction score
1,646
Location
Middle of Nowhere, Utah
This is not for our benefit.
This will not protect us.
This will not make us more secure.
This and the patriot act need to be booted out.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Invading Your Privacy? Dems Do it Too!

It's an awful, awful bill and it opens a Pandora's Box that will never be closed again.
Revised bill highlights

  • Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
  • Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
  • Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
  • Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
  • Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.
Among the 22 agencies that would have access to the e-mails of American citizens:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Office of Financial Research, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and
any other similar agency designated by statute as a Federal independent regulatory agency or commission.

Wow. What a gross overreach of government power. Sen. Leahy should be embarrassed.

And anyone concerned about this sort of intrusion and invasion of privacy should be spitting MAD. :rant:

Here's the names of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Is your Congresscritter on the list?
 

regdog

The Scavengers
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
58,075
Reaction score
21,013
Location
She/Her
I'll make it easy for them. Now they won't even have to check my e-mail

Dear Federal Government,

FUCK YOU!


Regards,
reg
 

Gale Haut

waxing digital artistic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
3,057
Reaction score
574
Location
The Swamplands
Website
www.galehaut.com
ETA: I just tweeted the following:
Gale Haut ‏@galehaut
@JohnCornyn I would let you know how thankful I am for you, but I guess you'll just read my personal email for that info.

I'll make it easy for them. Now they won't even have to check my e-mail

Dear Federal Government,

FUCK YOU!


Regards,
reg

QFMFT
 
Last edited:

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
5,189
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...ithout-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

I'm surprised you did not include the follow-up story which followed fast on the heels of the first story two days ago. It announced that Leahy had withdrawn his support after public criticism:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...les-his-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill/

There was a very big, highly visible link to the follow up story at the beginning of the OP link, which is just as well as I had just pulled out the ol' stationery to write a letter of protest to my Senator, Dick Durbin.

So, scary though this bill is, it is no longer being supported.
 

Ambrosia

Grand Duchess
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
26,893
Reaction score
7,269
Location
In the Castle, of course.
Though it is no longer being supported by Leahy, isn't it still going up for a vote next week? His removing his support doesn't stop it from being voted on, does it?
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,097
Reaction score
8,847
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
I'm surprised you did not include the follow-up story which followed fast on the heels of the first story two days ago. It announced that Leahy had withdrawn his support after public criticism:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...les-his-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill/

There was a very big, highly visible link to the follow up story at the beginning of the OP link, which is just as well as I had just pulled out the ol' stationery to write a letter of protest to my Senator, Dick Durbin.

So, scary though this bill is, it is no longer being supported.

i had already read the story, so a link added after the fact wasn't something i would have noticed.

that said, one would think your post would have been an excerpt from the update adding new information -- rather than the veiled accusation that my lack of followup was unfairly painting leahy as something he isn't.

because he is exactly what he was when he bent over for the feds in the first place. he abandoned the legislation specifically because the public outcry.

so instead of being "surprised" that i didn't rush back to vindicate pat leahy, you should be thanking me for the OP which, in some part, contributed to the public shaming that brought that weasel-faced fucker back into line with some semblance of decent leadership.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
5,189
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
i had already read the story, so a link added after the fact wasn't something i would have noticed.

that said, one would think your post would have been an excerpt from the update adding new information -- rather than the veiled accusation that my lack of followup was unfairly painting leahy as something he isn't.

because he is exactly what he was when he bent over for the feds in the first place. he abandoned the legislation specifically because the public outcry.

so instead of being "surprised" that i didn't rush back to vindicate pat leahy, you should be thanking me for the OP which, in some part, contributed to the public shaming that brought that weasel-faced fucker back into line with some semblance of decent leadership.

Ah. My error.

I had assumed you started this thread in order to discuss an atrocious proposed bill, not to vilify the author of it. Indeed, the thread title and the information as presented seemed to support this interpretation.

Mind you, nothing in my post expressed any support whatsoever of Patrick Leahy. Nor would I do so. The bill is as craven a piece of dangerous power grabbing as I have seen. Mr. Leahy's judgement and character are clear, but I assumed that dwelling on that would be a distraction from the far more important matter of the bill itself.

Given that I thought the bill, not Mr. Leahy's character, was the topic of this thread, I assumed that my information that support for the bill had been withdrawn would save a lot of people from anxiety. I might have considered quoting from the article, but it seemed unnecessary given that a link was included and in light of the simple news that the bill was effectively dead.

I see nothing in my previous post in support of Patrick Leahy, nor any requirement that you defend his character.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
Withdrawing support is nice for Mr. Leahy, in terms of trying to save face. Pulling the bill so it doesn't come up for a vote would actually do something, though. I'm thinking another note to Out senators wouldn't be amiss.

Senator Durbin's life on the net pretty much began with misadventure and amateur efforts. When content filtering went into effect in public schools and some public offices across the state, his office's site was one of the first ones blocked. I wish I could have been the one to point out why. "Sir, your first name is Dick."
 
Last edited: