Bill Requiring Warrants For Email Searches Nears Senate Vote

[Purveyor]

Source: The Hill

By Brendan Sasso - 07/21/13 06:00 AM ET

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is pushing to fast-track legislation that would require police to obtain a warrant before accessing emails and other private online messages.

Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D-Vt.) goal is for the Senate to unanimously approve his bill before the August recess, according to one of his committee aides. Any opposition could delay a vote until after Congress returns in the fall.

He has secured unanimous support from his fellow Democrats and is in negotiations with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, and other Republicans to address their concerns.

Leahy's aide claimed that even if a floor vote is delayed until after the recess, they are already "way past" the 60 votes they would need to overcome a filibuster and approve the bill, which is co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Mike Lee (Utah).


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/312383-warrant-requirement-for-email-searches-nears-senate-vote

[PDJane]

1. Link

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/312383-warrant-requirement-for-email-searches-nears-senate-vote

[JDPriestly]

17. This bill is a waste of time. They need to get the NSA under control. That's where the problems ar

Who do they think they are fooling with this sham of a bill?

[cantbeserious]

2. Good Then That Consensus Is Being Reached

eom

[JDPriestly]

16. A wet noodle. It is far too little. They need to control the NSA program and fast before it is

simply moved out of the country.

[woo me with science]

20. +1 and even further. This is a dangerous, authoritarian precedent to set.

The mass spying is unconstitutional, period. A bill like this pretends, and sets a legal precedent, that the status quo *allows* spying and that we need specific, additional laws to *make* the spying illegal.

That is wrong. The mass spying is unconstitutional and illegal *by default,* and the government must go through legal channels and obtain a WARRANT to justify it in each case.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. Rec

[Dawson Leery]

3. k/r

[leveymg]

4. NOTE: Police are already required to obtain Title III warrants - Bill does nothing to change NSA

About what we've come to expect from this Congress and Administration on 4th Amendment privacy issues. Window-dressing. And, I don't like saying this.

[Purveyor]

6. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out come the 2014 elections, indeed. eom

[leveymg]

7. NSA spying scandal a bi-partisan issue, but does not help Dems one bit.

There seems to be a broad cross-section of the electorate, bipartisan, Left-Right spectrum, who are polarized by these revelations of universal spying and profiling.

We are also beginning to see them coalesce around 4th Amendment protection - too bad we don't have a fraction of the money and organization the 2nd Amendment RTBA types do, and MIC industry money is solidly in favor of expanded gov't spying, alas.

[Purveyor]

8. Actually could hurt a few if they side with the 'sweepers'. I know I will be using it as one of the

factors to consider before endorsing a candidate.

[leveymg]

10. Most of the pols in the inner DC burbs are liberals - they tend to say the right things, but duck

the real issues of DoD and IC funding and Patriot Act extensions.

The problem is, they know we have no alternative other than to continue to vote and GOTV for them.

[formercia]

11. If the AG would just enforce the Constitution he was sworn to defend.

Anyone who violates their Oath should be charged.

[cstanleytech]

21. I thought that the NSA still had to get a warrant?

[PSPS]

5. This isn't even addressing the issue

Leahy's bill would not affect the NSA programs, but it would curb the ability of local and federal law enforcement officials to access private online messages.

In other words, the NSA would still be sweeping up and storing everything for future fishing expeditions.

[reformist2]

14. So this bill is a phony fig leaf, basically.

[Helen Borg]

9. What I don't completely understand is:

Why aren't ALL politicians completely against this type of invasion or privacy? Selfishly, aren't they worried that one day it will be used against them?

[christx30]

19. For the same reason they got

into politics in the first place. They like power. They get as much as they legally can, and rewrite the law to get more. It's a serious personality defect.

[treestar]

12. police?

That still allows the CIA to spy on Americans!!!!

[Trillo]

13. Ah, I see the "collection" vs. "use" canard is in play. NT

[JDPriestly]

15. They need to rein in the NSA and the collection of metadata too.

Just controlling the police, etc. as targeted in this bill is not enough to insure a modicum of privacy and protect our democratic institutions.

And yes, they should have to get a warrant and subpoena documents in civil investigations too. It is a balancing act, and the weight and power is mostly on the side of the government as it is.

The SEC does far too little. I guess just how little it does would become quantifiable if Congress could determine how many warrants it obtains. Also, if warrants were obtained, everyone would know whether the SEC is really doing its job or is overwhelmed by corruption and whether it is targeting offenders fairly.

Anything that would reveal to the public or to Congress the extent of corruption among those who carry out and enforce our laws would be helpful for the public but uncomfortable for those charged with enforcing the law.

[cstanleytech]

22. To be honest the metadata collection doesnt concern me to much.

I am not sure why but it might be because I know the phone company itself already keeps that data for their own records for a long time so it might be that.
Now what would concern me is if they were storing all of the varies conversations that everyone had as well.

[PSPS]

24. There's a big difference

True, the phone company keeps the data but it's for billing purposes only and is routinely discarded after that (i.e., it isn't kept "for a long time.&quot They don't cross-reference, do a "3-level" analysis or anything else. All they care about is billing. Furthermore, the phone company doesn't have the power of the government to interfere with your life.

[karynnj]

27. The phone company can and does analyze that data

They use it as the basis of knowing how to grow the network and they use it to test marketing plans. It is NOT discarded - as you would know if you questioned past bills. They keep it and they can access it.

[cstanleytech]

28. Well I know when I had ATT wireless I could go back for months to see what numbers I called when

I called and for how long the call lasted and it didnt bother me that ATT could see it as well because its just basic data its not like they recorded the conversations.

[PADemD]

18. Is the warrant to be issued by a regular judge or a FISA court judge?

[woo me with science]

23. This is NOT a fix. This is an assault.

Last edited Sun Jul 21, 2013, 08:27 PM - Edit history (4)

Our representatives need to aggressively defend our privacy based on the Constitution, not by doing this.

It's a dangerous assault. This action pretends that we need to pass special laws to make the spying *illegal." It pretends that the spying is legal by default and that we need to pass laws to make it illegal.

This pretense is outrageous and dangerous. The mass spying is unconstitutional and illegal *by default,* and the government must go through legal channels and obtain a WARRANT to justify it in each case.

Passing laws like this codifies what the oligarchs *want* to be the case: that spying is legal by default and we the people need to take legal action to prevent each type...rather than what the Constitution is supposed to ensure: that we have privacy by default, and the government must obtain and show a damned good legal reason to invade it in each and every instance.


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.

[99th_Monkey]

26. K & R to that!! ~nt