Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Am I just paranoid or does this law bring us closer to the 1984 that George Orwell envisioned. <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/?tag=nl.e703&s_cid=e703" target="_blank">http://news.cnet.com/8301-1357...cid=e703</a> I know the old argument, if you aren't hiding anything then who cares what they do... I don't buy that argument as these checks eat away at our civil rights.. Am I in the minority on this?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If CNET is accurately characterizing what the bill has in it now, I'm totally with you on this, William. In fact, I can't imagine it would survive a 4th amendment challenge from a fair-minded court.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I don't buy that argument<< Me either, not by a longshot. Anyone who says "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't care if they check up on me" is either ignorant or stupid. If you think not doing something wrong guarantees you freedom or protection, you are sorely mistaken.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Apparently Lehy is denying that he supports this bill: <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/268929-leahy-denies-supporting-bill-to-allow-warrantless-email-searches" target="_blank">http://thehill.com/blogs/hilli...searches</a>
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I have a funny feeling that the Feds already have access to anything about us they want. These bills just give them a legal recourse in court, assuming there is even a trial.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I have a funny feeling that the Feds already have access to anything about us they want. These bills just give them a legal recourse in court, assuming there is even a trial." Pretty much. According to the article that I linked: >>Under current law, police only need an administrative subpoena, issued without a judge's approval, to read emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old. Police simply swear an email is relevant to an investigation, and then obtain a subpoena to force an Internet company to turn it over.<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Also according to Hans' link: "CNET has it wrong," an aide tweeted from Leahy's account. "Sen. Leahy does NOT support an #ECPA exception to search warrant requirement [for] civil enforcement [for agencies] like FTC, SEC." A Judiciary Committee aide confirmed to The Hill that Leahy "does not support broad carve-outs for warrantless email searches." (snip) "The aide said it is possible that CNET was referring to a draft of the bill circulated by other lawmakers or interest groups, but that Leahy would not support any similar proposal. "Ideas from many sources always circulate [before] a markup [for discussion], but Sen. Leahy does NOT support such an exception for #ECPA search warrants," Leahy's account tweeted. The account tweeted that "the whole point of the Leahy reforms is [to] require search warrants [for government] to access email stored with [third] party service providers." Chris Calabrese, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who has been following the issue, said he had seen the draft bill cited by CNET, but he said he was never under the impression that Leahy supported it. "There was a lot of language floating around," Calabrese said. He added that the ACLU would not support any proposal that includes broad exceptions for civil enforcement. "That undercuts the whole purpose of the bill," he said. Calabrese noted that the proposal cited by CNET is similar to amendments proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary Committee's top Republican. Grassley expressed skepticism about creating new barriers for police investigations at a committee meeting in September."
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 CNET is usually a good source when it comes to technological news, so it'll be interesting as to how this plays out. I think there is more to this story.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Considering how poorly the CNET article was written I wouldn't hold my breath.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, it looks like there was definitely at least one draft of the bill out there that makes it easier to access people's emails etc. - the question is who was supporting that, who was opposing it, etc. Since the original bill to make it HARDER to access (except with a warrant) was originally Leahy's baby, it makes sense he would oppose efforts to make it easier, but it does bear watching. If YOU oppose it, you should write to your congressman and both your senators. I plan to.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If YOU oppose it, you should write to your congressman and both your senators.<< But don't email it!
