Law Enforcement Officials Freak Out About Possibility Of Having To Get Warrants To Read Your Email
from the bill-delayed dept
We recently noted that Senator Leahy had attached his mostly good ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) reform bill to another bill reforming the VPPA (Video Privacy Protection Act). The ECPA reform would update a decades-old law that law enforcement has interpreted to more or less mean they don't need a warrant to read your online email. Leahy's update would require a warrant. This is a good and important reform that should be supported. But, of course, law enforcement freaked out and it appears that Leahy has backed down, delaying hearings on the bill for now (funny how he really wanted to push through PIPA despite massive public protests, but a few law enforcement people get upset about respecting the 4th Amendment and things get delayed). From Declan McCullagh's coverage:The delay comes two days after a phalanx of law enforcement organizations objected to the legislation, asking Leahy to "reconsider acting" on it "until a more comprehensive review of its impact on law enforcement investigations is conducted." The groups included the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association.Of course it would have "adverse impact" on criminal investigations. So do lots of things -- but those are the rules law enforcement plays by in a free society. It's not built to make law enforcement's life easy.
[....] A person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have been expressing their displeasure about requiring search warrants. The department is on record as opposing such a requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.
Either way, it appears that this bit of ECPA reform will get pushed off once again. Hopefully, when it comes back, it won't be watered down.
For what it's worth, both the EFF and the ACLU -- who strongly support ECPA reform similar to what Leahy has been proposing -- have also not been that happy with how Leahy introduced this bill, because they both oppose the changes to the VPPA, which they're afraid will weaken privacy for people. This is a (somewhat rare, but not unprecedented) situation where I disagree with both of those organizations. The VPPA was a specific and broad carve-out to deal with a single situation (bork bork bork). I think it's reasonable to update it to allow for things like letting people choose to let Netflix and social networks share info on what movies they've watched -- just like the can choose to show what music they listen to. I don't necessarily believe that it makes sense to link the VPPA to ECPA reform, but I don't think that passing the VPPA reform is so problematic that it should stop ECPA reform. Of course, if law enforcement has its way (and so far, that seems to be the case), ECPA reform might never happen. Is it really worth worrying about how you can choose to share your Netflix movies on Facebook while the Justice Department feels it can snoop broadly through your Gmail?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, ecpa, patrick leahy, privacy, vppa, warrants
Companies: netflix
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did expect this. The little cynic me deep inside my head laughed at the effort and told me it was gonna be short lived, specially considering Leahy was a supporter of PIPA.
In the end we could at least tell that some Senators have no clue of what they are supporting or introducing. If Leahy had a clue he wouldn't support such contradictory bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps I'm too cynical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now the back story
The constant litany of “Supreme Court choices” as a motivating factor in reelecting the neocon administration of President Obama doesn’t really hold up when all the data is examined.
Those closely following federal court jurisprudence will understand what we say when it is explained that the majority of truly important cases never make it to the supreme court, while too many trivial cases do end up there.
The Citizens United case should never have made it to the SCOTUS level, where the vile decision was written by the so-called “liberal” Justice David Kennedy (so described by newsy pundits).
The really important judicial decisions, antithetical to democracy, to the citizenry, to working people and those seeking work, are rendered by the federal courts.
This structure isn’t by chance, but careful design, put in place back in 1978, and incrementally improved over the past thirty-some years.
The US Chamber of Commerce established the National Chamber Litigation Center to this very end, back in 1978.
Thus, when the populist Jesse Ventura urges American voters to reject their usual choice of militant ignorance, and seek the third party solution, he is quite correct.
Today, the government has the “legal” right to access all personal information about the citizenry without their knowledge, thanks to the Obama Administration and judicial decisions from the federal courts; this is no justification to reelect.
Obviously, the strategy was to find the vilest, most despicable American possible to run against Obama, making him appear pristine by comparison. In this they’ve been most successful with their choice of the vile, despicable Romney (and Ryan).
Whether from indoctrination or mass advertising, too often Americans choose to remain ignorant --- and it is a choice!
Recently, like many others, I was approached to make a donation against the validation of Wisconsin’s Gov. Walker in his recall election. Naturally, I declined --- not having the money was beside the point --- having watched the exit interviews of union members from the Walker’s first election to governor, I was convinced of their militant choice to remain ignorant.
I was sadly proven correct: 40% of union households in Wisconsin voted for Walker in both elections!
Presently, we see the workers at Bain’s Sensata facility, whose jobs are being offshored to China, having finally recognized the impact of jobs offshoring, and blithely explaining how they were taken by surprise?
Amazing, given the overwhelming data to suggest that was the likely outcome!
I have personally witnessed this type of behavior again and again and again; where the workers refuse to acknowledge the obvious --- where they chose ignorance above all!
Now the Bain-owned company workers are begging Bain not to offshore their jobs; the psychopaths just love to see them beg.
Of course, those pathetically begging workers don’t realize this as they’ve chosen to remain ignorant all along.
Those of us who’ve been actively fighting jobs offshoring --- one of their major tools in the dismantling of the economy --- since 1978, the same year of the Powell memorandum, the year the USCoC established their National Chamber Litigation Center, and the Rockefeller Foundation's creation of the Group of Thirty --- view the begging workers with disgust and disdain.
(At this late date, thirty years too little, too late, they would probably be better served going back to watching their sports, cable TV and movies, etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-Z3e7H681N0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And now the back story
In theory, perhaps, but in practice it's pretty hard to find a third party that presents a realistic alternative.
I think that the right way to shift away from the Dems and Reps is to start with small local elections. Going third party for the larger elections truly is just wasting your vote, especially in years (such as this one) when there are clear and important differences between the parties. The lesser of two evils is still less evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) already allows choice.
" I think it's reasonable to update it to allow for things like letting people choose to let Netflix and social networks share info on what movies they've watched -- just like the can choose to show what music they listen to."
I think you are operating under a misunderstanding of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). As the law currently stands users can _choose_ to share their video viewing information. That isn't the _problem_ that Netflix and Facebook (a.k.a Big Business [BB]) wants to _correct_.
The main problem with the VPPA (in the eyes of BB) is that it prohibits "frictionless" sharing. VPPA is _opt_in_ (no just turning it on and hoping you don't find the 'off' switch). It requires _informed_consent_ (no burying in on page 78 written in legalese that a Supreme Court justice would have trouble parsing) and it _can't_be_changed_unilaterally_ by BB, as just about every _agreement_ these days that states 'subject to change without notice' does).
People are legally allowed to share video information from NetFlix to Facebook for specific purposes under the VPPA. It's just that they are afraid that people wouldn't agree if they were to actually be given a choice. BB is only interested in getting their hands on that data for uses that have little to do with letting your Facebook friends know what old movies and television shows you've been watching. If that's all it was, they could have done it already.
If anything we should be applying VPPA privacy safeguards more broadly, not trying to scale them back.
Currently your video rentals have more privacy protection than practically any other information about you. More than your emails, more than your cell phone, more even than your medical records.
The ACLU and EFF were correct to be upset by the combination of these too bills. One to strengthen privacy protections tied to one that would weaken them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small potatoes when compared to new executive order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small potatoes when compared to new executive order
This is a misleading way to say it. Executive orders do not replace or change laws (the province of Congress), but are directives to executive agencies (the province of the Executive).
In other words, executive orders don't really "bypass" congress at all, as they're an assertion of executive power as the constitution prescribes.
That said, there have been occasions when executive orders did exceed executive authority. These can be (and have been) successfully challenged on constitutional grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small potatoes when compared to new executive order
Consider their recent actions: massive data-gathering incl. hoarding people's private info without their consent, recording phone conversations, accessing people's smart phones without their knowledge (including turning on their camera/mic), and tracking people via GPS. Then there's the security theatre, stop-and-frisk, the TSA goons at airports and now attempting to invade bus stops, train stations and highways all across the country (IOW, Nazi-style checkpoints). They've got literally millions of coffin-liners piled in random areas around the country. Likewise, there are the so-called FEMA camps/facilities just sitting there without use. The government is preparing to send drones up in the sky to watch us from above. Y'know, to keep us safe. From something.
A safe country is one where the government doesn't spy on its own citizens, doesn't step all over their rights and doesn't treat everyone like a possible criminal. We were much safer a few decades ago than we are today. Be warned, the biggest threat to our nation isn't some nonsensical terrorist threat but rather the threat of our own government eliminating all of our rights and treating us like cattle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small potatoes when compared to new executive order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That a government agency, especially a law enforcement agency should set itself above the law. or seek to abandon important third party checks on its members, is gambling with its reputation. Is saying that it is more importamt than the society in which it operates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wee doan neeed no stienkin warrants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]