dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Leahy Bill Rewrite Expands Warrantless E-mail Snooping
As Bill Pretends to Protect Citizen E-mail Privacy
by Karl Bode 12:29PM Tuesday Nov 20 2012 Tipped by FFH See Profile
Because the rapid, massive and unprecedented existing expansion of government surveillance powers over the last decade apparently wasn't significant enough, a new rewrite of a Senate bill will allow additional warrantless surveillance of citizen e-mail. Declan McCullagh over at CNET notes that a bill by Democrat Patrick Leahy that proclaims to be protecting consumer e-mail privacy, actually expands e-mail surveillance powers dramatically:
quote:
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.
Leahy appears to have buckled under pressure from the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations.

view:
topics flat nest 

Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3

Freedom vs. Security

I can understand the need for law enforcement and national security agencies to have the ability to monitor the flow of e-mail communications to protect Americans (and to an extend, the world) of pending attacks.

However, I am cannot understand, nor fathom, how any politician, or any individual, feels that eroding our rights to privacy is somehow far more important than the security of this nation.

While we may "win" on the forefront of fighting terrorism, we will certainly have lost the right to freedom.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us

NOCTech75
Premium
join:2009-06-29
Marietta, GA

1 recommendation

Re: Freedom vs. Security

And what terrorism attacks are we stopping? We sure as hell didn't stop the one in Libya.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Freedom vs. Security

said by NOCTech75:

And what terrorism attacks are we stopping? We sure as hell didn't stop the one in Libya.

That had nothing to do with getting or having the needed info. That was just the usual government political operatives failing to act on info for political reasons.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

NOCTech75
Premium
join:2009-06-29
Marietta, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Re: Freedom vs. Security

said by FFH:

said by NOCTech75:

And what terrorism attacks are we stopping? We sure as hell didn't stop the one in Libya.

That had nothing to do with getting or having the needed info. That was just the usual government political operatives failing to act on info for political reasons.

Right, which means they need none of this information since they won't act based on the political wind blowing.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
said by FFH:

That had nothing to do with getting or having the needed info. That was just the usual government political operatives failing to act on info for political reasons.

If government cannot even be bothered to do its expected job correctly with the powers that it has then it should absolutely not be entrusted with expanded powers.

The government can do what anyone else must if they wish to read someone's private correspondence, go to a judge and make the case for needing to do so.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Freedom vs. Security

The government would have to actually present a case then. I get the feeling that letter agencies like to work behind closed doors with maximum privacy and freedom erosion in place.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

1 recommendation

said by pnh102:

If government cannot even be bothered to do its expected job correctly with the powers that it has then it should absolutely not be entrusted with expanded powers.

The government can do what anyone else must if they wish to read someone's private correspondence, go to a judge and make the case for needing to do so.

I can't figure out why, for the last 10 years, the federal government has decided that judges, warrants, due process, etc. are an enemy to be circumvented. And I can't figure out why people support it, or put up with it without whimper.

If some foreign leaders began making speeches in the US saying they rejected the US system of justice as an inconvenient hindrance to the exercise of benevolent government power, there would be howls all over the country about it. If our own government does it though, well, it must be OK because terrorism, you know, and why bother, you know, and piracy and the children and oh yeah, terrorism.

You can't uphold the rule of law and a way of life by taking it apart, but that's what's happening. Through 2 administrations now, and the next one will be doing it too.

Dominokat
"Hi"
Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

1 recommendation

They are using "terrorism" as a cover up for the excuse to take away our freedoms and spy on us. Heaven forbid we use the wrong combination of words and then BANG! Have the NSA or Secret Service on your door.

Welcome to America, land of the (kind of) free.

I never felt this way before, but the more I keep reading about what is going on with our online information being more and more hand delivered to the NSA, etc... I can't help but feel this way.

We ARE free (for now) as long as we don't post anything on the internet, email, Facebook, Twitter..... all the stuff people are now using.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Freedom vs. Security

said by Dominokat:

They are using "terrorism" as a cover up for the excuse to take away our freedoms and spy on us. Heaven forbid we use the wrong combination of words and then BANG! Have the NSA or Secret Service on your door.

Exactly.

There will be absolutely no good that comes out of this bill.

How many terrorists you think will use email in the open as a means of communications once this gets in? Zero. There are plenty of far more secure ways to communicate.

Like with nearly every other tactic used in homefront on the War on Terror, only the innocent people are the ones inconvenienced by these things.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.
Os

join:2011-01-26
US

Re: Freedom vs. Security

While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.

The only way you start fixing the problem is voting against both of the entrenched parties.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Freedom vs. Security

said by Os:

While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.

If you are talking about the USA PATRIOT Act, then please consider that the core of it was proposed by Joe Biden after the OKC Bombing in 1995.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_···security

I agree that neither party is a saint on personal freedom issues, but to blame one and ignore the other is wrong to do.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.
Os

join:2011-01-26
US

Re: Freedom vs. Security

And the Patriot Act received 1 vote against it in the Senate (from Russ Feingold of Wisconsin). Vote them all out.

I'm saying it's inconsistent to support personal freedom and vote for either of them. You had a line about Mitt Romney in your signature. I'm proud to say I voted for neither of the major candidates, and this was a major reason.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Freedom vs. Security

said by Os:

I'm saying it's inconsistent to support personal freedom and vote for either of them. You had a line about Mitt Romney in your signature. I'm proud to say I voted for neither of the major candidates, and this was a major reason.

The reason of course was because voting for an idealistic third party candidate who agrees 100% with my views but who has absolutely no chance of winning has the same net effect as voting for the candidate with whom I disagree with on 99.9999999% of the issues.

If you find my argument specious, then please ask all the people who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 how they felt about Bill Clinton winning in those elections. Or look at Florida in 2000. 98k people in that election voted for Ralph Nader. How do you think they felt about Bush winning that state and the Presidency by 537 votes? Even if you blame that on fraud, had all (or even half of) 98k of those people voted for Al Gore, he would have won that state by a comfortable margin.

I'm not going to blame people who voted for third party candidates for Romney losing (3 million or so fewer GOP voters showed up in 2012 than in 2008). But I am simply presenting to you the mathematical reasoning behind my consistently voting the way I do. Perhaps we should change things to allow for instant run-off voting and requiring that the winner of such a contest receive a majority of the votes. But until that happens, I have to accept voting for third party candidates for what it is, a vote for the guy i disagree with the most.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.

Hagar

join:2004-10-31
Sunnyvale, CA
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse

Re: Freedom vs. Security

pnh102 do you live in one of the swing states?

Your signature says Maryland which is a solid blue state. I think your vote did not matter, Obama was going to win the state no matter what. You could safely vote for the candidate you agree most with.

I am in California also a solid blue state, I did safely vote for the 3rd party candidate I agreed most with. I would not have done so if I lived in Florida, to close to call.

A vote for a candidate is never wasted in my book, a vote against a candidate is only valid if there is a close election otherwise it is just a empty gesture (assumption winner get all electoral votes).

/edit added assumption

NOCTech75
Premium
join:2009-06-29
Marietta, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

said by Os:

While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.

And your Democrats have done nothing to change this mess and in fact have made it increase in scope just as much.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Freedom vs. Security

said by NOCTech75:

said by Os:

While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.

And your Democrats have done nothing to change this mess and in fact have made it increase in scope just as much.

And not only that... this is another Democrat proposing this.

Where's the freedom?
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.

meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY
said by Dominokat:

Welcome to America, land of the (kind of) free.

It's Amerika. AmeriCa hasn't existed for several decades. You live in a country whose government is run by self serving bureaucrats whose only objective is to enrich themselves and protect all the schemes they've developed for parting the rest of us from our money. I guess most sheeple still don't get it. The "Terrorists" they are worried about are YOU.
--
Isn't it sad that those that raise their right hand and swear "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" are usually the ones most likely to trash it.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
And if they need to get that data what was so wrong with requiring a warrant as we once did?
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

dib22

join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO

Re: Freedom vs. Security

said by Kearnstd:

And if they need to get that data what was so wrong with requiring a warrant as we once did?

How dare you want the law enforcers to follow the law

They keep trying to eliminate over-site so they can do whatever they want.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
The suggested law does not require warrants in many cases. But it still requires a subpoena in all cases. Getting a subpoena is less rigorous to obtain than a warrant, but it still needs an OK from the investigating department, leaving a paper trail. It is just much easier to get.

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552···arrants/

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.

I really don't have a problem with getting info for FBI, Homeland Security, etc to investigate. But for the life of me I can't see any reason to include all these other Federal agencies in the law.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3

Re: Freedom vs. Security

said by FFH:

But for the life of me I can't see any reason to include all these other Federal agencies in the law.

That is, aside from everything else, the biggest issue. When you start involving multiple agencies, you're destined to run into abuse.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us

Mephisto13

join:2008-05-16
Gatineau, QC

1 recommendation

said by Rob:

However, I am cannot understand, nor fathom, how any politician, or any individual, feels that eroding our rights to privacy is somehow far more important than the security of this nation.

Whoever thinks that the government is doing this for "security" purposes, tell them to contact me, I have some prime swampland to sell them.

That's the excuse they are using to induce fear and paranoia in the populace so that they don't feel bad when their privacy rights are being infringed upon, to make them feel better so they can tell themselves "It will make me safer!" to this blatant invasion of privacy. In reality it has nothing to do with "security", but control.

And once you give it up, it's hard as hell to get it back. That's even if you will ever get it back. Whoever doesn't fight this tooth and nail doesn't understand the future repercussions that this will cause.

Can you say dystopia?

That is, unless you trust your government to use these powers justly without oversight. In which case, ever think about buying some prime swampland?
--
"With your shield or on it!" - spartan code

"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai
ke4pym
Premium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC

1 recommendation

Ugh

Democrat Patrick Leahy is just full of s***. That is all.

Wish he'd get voted out.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Ugh

said by ke4pym:

Democrat Patrick Leahy is just full of s***. That is all.

Wish he'd get voted out.

Agreed... another poster child for congressional term limits.

What do a bunch of people who have been in Congress for a million years know about the real world?
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.

nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric

Re: Ugh

said by pnh102:

said by ke4pym:

Democrat Patrick Leahy is just full of s***. That is all.

Wish he'd get voted out.

Agreed... another poster child for congressional term limits.

What do a bunch of people who have been in Congress for a million years know about the real world?

Glad I am not the only one that noticed. Patrick leahy is always the first to churn out this type of crap, just look at the patriot act renewals, his name is always sponsoring the bill or act. Hope he gets voted out SOON!

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Ugh

said by nonamesleft:

[Hope he gets voted out SOON!

He won't, and that's the problem. The rest of us in 49 states who cannot stand this guy have no power to vote him out.

And the same goes for some long-tenured GOP politicians too.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.
Os

join:2011-01-26
US

Land of the Free.....

.....I don't think this is what they meant.
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Encryption

About time that email was encrypted.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Leahy denies some of what CNet claimed in their news item

»thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle···searches

A Judiciary Committee aide denied on Tuesday that Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) supports legislation that would allow government agencies to read emails, Facebook messages and other forms of electronic communication without a warrant.

CNET, a technology news site, reported on Tuesday that Leahy was backing a bill that would allow more than 22 federal agencies to read private emails without a warrant.

"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."

Evidently he is not denying support of some changes, just not everything CNet says he supports.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Leahy denies some of what CNet claimed in their news item

said by FFH:

Evidently he is not denying support of some changes, just not everything CNet says he supports.

He should withdraw the entire bill then so we don't have to worry about it.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Leahy gives up and won't submit amendments to bill

The heat got to be too much for Leahy and he has given up on amending the House bill to make it acceptable to law enforcement lobbyists.

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552···ce-bill/
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

cabana
Department of Adjustments
Premium,Mod
join:2000-07-07
New York, NY

2 edits

So ... will you call your senator? I know I will ...

This goes way beyond the worse case scenario ... this is an all out gutting of any person's right to have any private conversation of any kind online ANYWHERE.

This means that 22 federal agencies ... and INDIVIDUALS (who make up an agency) ... with little or no oversight from the average citizen can do as they would like under any broad umbrella they care to pop open...

and zero notification that your private drawers are being rifled through ... (all on the premise that "they" are looking just in case anything "good" is there) ...

Think about it ... any health issue you may not want public ... that ... private discussion you have with your friend ... family member etc ... that ... financial discussion ... ALL LAWFUL ... and PRIVATE ... not so much.

And think about the professional industry ... attorney client privilege ... your accountant ... your doctor discussing options ...

Care to express your political views privately (and within the scope of the law) ... nope ... not so private ... care to discuss anything beyond the most mundane ... up for grabs ...

And ask yourself this question ... what are the repercussions for abuse by an agency (and anyone that says this will not be abused is living an a very lovely place in their mind)

If only this were an imaginary problem and tin foil were the solution ...

(note: edited for grammar ... just in case the grammar police are looking too)
Ghostmaker1

join:2011-07-11
Brunswick, OH

What is the problem here?

Law enforcement would never step across moral bonds and start monitoring all electronic communications now would they?

They already monitor all cell phone traffic...
ajeff

join:2007-07-30
Orleans, VT
Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..

1 recommendation

Whoops!!!

Seems like this is another example of: "It's on the internet, it must be true!"

»www.burlingtonfreepress.com/arti···RONTPAGE

cabana
Department of Adjustments
Premium,Mod
join:2000-07-07
New York, NY

Re: Whoops!!!

said by ajeff:

Seems like this is another example of: "It's on the internet, it must be true!"

»www.burlingtonfreepress.com/arti···RONTPAGE

And a senator would never lie ... or do an about face

At a minimum we are way past the proverbial wake up call on such an important issue ... and as it stands I personally am hoping that citizens really do give a damn and maybe trump lobbyville on this one!
travisdh1

join:2007-10-20
Wooster, OH

He who gives up his freedom for security deserves neither.

He who gives up his freedom for security deserves neither.
biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361

What was the point of the law?

Why would the US (as supposedly found in the original bill) need to pass a law to restate what is found in the fourth amendment?

What's next? Trying to pass a law banning the forced quartering of troops during peacetime? How about passing a law establishing the right to vote for those 18 and older?

Gino
Il Cavallino Rampante

join:2000-12-14
Danbury, CT

Paraphrasing from Ben Franklin

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

dean corso

join:2007-09-07

Continue to beat the 4th amendment into oblivion.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
--
"If you want to remain slaves of the bankers and pay for the costs of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control the nation’s credit." - Josiah Stamp