New Senate Bill gives warrantless e-mail searches to 22 agencies

[gturner]

CNET article

The new Senate bill Patrick Leahy is pushing lets 22 federal agencies read your e-mails without a warrant. It has upsides and downsides. People at these agencies will now get constant personal calls from people working at other agencies asking them to check e-mail accounts "as a favor", making them feel loved. I also picked up the implication that campus cops would be able to check university accounts, and they'll end up spending so much time monitoring co-ed sex messages that they won't harrass people at campus bars nearly as often.

Anyone see any downsides?

[gturner]

Oh, and if a mod could correct "warrentless" in the thread title, it would be appreciated by all!

[Robert Maxwell]

Your thread title is fixed.

The scenario you describe is a bit wonky, in any case. They aren't going to make thousands of frivolous requests because the company actually hosting the email accounts has to comply with them and turn over the information. They're going to complain if they're getting bombarded with these requests.

Not to say it won't be abused at all--I'm sure it will be, as all such powers are--but this nightmare scenario of virtually everyone's emails being read for fun by federal agents is hyperbolic, to say the least.

University students do their sexy talk over phones, Skype, and Facebook, by the way, not university email accounts.

[Alidar Jarok]

A Professor from George Washington University Law School comments on this:
Link

The story received an extraordinary amount of attention this morning, including a banner headline on the Drudge Report. And it caused a lot of consternation and surprise among those who follow e-mail privacy issues on the Hill. No one knew this was coming, and the trend has been the opposite: Senator Leahy has supported a bill that would enhance e-mail privacy, adding a universal warrant requirement and a notice requirement. Markup up is scheduled for next week in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But where was this new language expanding government power? No one had heard of it or seen it.

It now seems that the CNET report was just erroneous, or at least based on a major misunderstanding. When Declan’s report was posted, Senator Leahy’s Twitter account quickly responded that Leahy did not endorse the changes that Declan had claimed.

[gturner]

Hrm... Makes me wonder if some lobbyist for law-enforcement sent CNET the bill they were pushing, or perhaps someone opposed to that version leaked it to make sure it died.

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Possible. Either way, it died, and that's what counts.

[gturner]

Well, we'd all better keep an eye on the committee's doings. When it comes to a gaggle of 60 and 70 year-old self-important lawyers making decisions about the Intertubewebs, vigilance is always warranted.

[137th Gebirg]

This latest incarnation was done sloppily. That's why it incurred so much wrath and attention from the unwashed masses. The next time it comes around - if it comes around - it will likely be better obfuscated and wrapped in a cloak of crunchy patriotic goodness.

[publiusr]

Well, I don't know that the Founders would have had an answer for this. They would have thought high electronics witchcraft--and the idea about warrants and what not was to slow rash actions down.
In the era of cybersecurity and terrorism, you need things to speed up. To me warrant means this is what you need to actually confront and kick someones door down.

Otherwise, you need how many judges scanning 3 million e-mails with the word "bom" in them and each needs a judge to sign off on it? Now if that's your line...fine. But be willing to take the hit. And if a strike happns, who gets the blame? Well we say terrorists...unless its Benghazi and folks want heads to roll over inaction that limiting cybersecurity efforts will worsen.

[Robert Maxwell]

publiusr wrote:

---

Well, I don't know that the Founders would have had an answer for this. They would have thought high electronics witchcraft--and the idea about warrants and what not was to slow rash actions down.
In the era of cybersecurity and terrorism, you need things to speed up. To me warrant means this is what you need to actually confront and kick someones door down.

Otherwise, you need how many judges scanning 3 million e-mails with the word "bom" in them and each needs a judge to sign off on it? Now if that's your line...fine. But be willing to take the hit. And if a strike happns, who gets the blame? Well we say terrorists...unless its Benghazi and folks want heads to roll over inaction that limiting cybersecurity efforts will worsen.

What?

[Gov Kodos]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

What?

That's why the founders had the alien and sedition acts. They knew aliens were infiltrating the country so they used the Masons to create an underground network to subvert their world conquering plans which are being sped up by modern technology. The Bengazi business shows how far they've come by having an Illumnatus stooge in the White House.

[137th Gebirg]

Hmmm...I must have missed that meeting.

[gturner]

Well, it's bad enough that Clinton signed a secret executive order giving Santa the authority to hack into everyone's e-mail accounts to see who was naughty and nice.

[Gov Kodos]

That turned out a cock up.

[Alidar Jarok]

gturner wrote:

---

Well, we'd all better keep an eye on the committee's doings. When it comes to a gaggle of 60 and 70 year-old self-important lawyers making decisions about the Intertubewebs, vigilance is always warranted.

What's with the lawyer criticism. At least lawyers know what the constitution requires. It's the non-lawyers who don't understand why we "coddle criminals" that concern me.