Patrick Leahy Introduces Legislation (Yet Again) To Require Government Warrants To Get Your Electronic Info
from the dc-just-keeps-doing-remakes dept
It's been quite a day in terms of news out of DC. We've been talking about copyright/first sale, cybersecurity bills, the CFAA... and now Senator Patrick Leahy, for what feels like the 2,394th time, has introduced a plan to reform ECPA. Like the CFAA, ECPA is an extremely troubling and outdated piece of legislation where Congress tried to deal with "those computer things" back in the 1980s in a manner that just doesn't make any sense today. Mainly it has opened up massive loopholes for the US government to access your data with little to no oversight (for example, the law considers messages on a server for over 180 days to be "abandoned" and thus fair game for law enforcement, as it never considered the idea of cloud storage). Senator Leahy would like to update the law to protect our privacy, such that law enforcement would actually be required to get a warrant.If all of this sounds familiar, you wouldn't be wrong. We've been discussing it forever. Leahy keeps introducing bills and they never seem to turn into law. Law enforcement has been his main antagonist on this, though the DOJ (somewhat surprisingly) appeared to concede today that ECPA needs significant reform, even calling out the 180 day issue explicitly in testimony before the Judiciary Committee:
Many have noted—and we agree—that some of the lines drawn by the SCA that may have made sense in the past have failed to keep up with the development of technology, and the ways in which individuals and companies use, and increasingly rely on, electronic and stored communications. We agree, for example, that there is no principled basis to treat email less than 180 days old differently than email more than 180 days old. Similarly, it makes sense that the statute not accord lesser protection to opened emails than it gives to emails that are unopened.That said, the DOJ is likely to push back on significant parts of any ECPA reform effort, to make sure it still has the ability to trawl through as much data as possible. Much of the testimony seems to warn of a parade of horribles that could occur if (*gasp*!) it has to get warrants for everything.
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: ecpa, ecpa reform, patrick leahy, privacy, reform, warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh
You should have no problem answering questions from the police, letting your person, house, car, or other property be searched without a warrant, giving the government access to your emails, phone calls, voicemails, texts, IMs, thoughts, etc. In fact if you have nothing to hide you should have no problem being held indefinitely, tortured or having your daughter raped.
People who worry about what the government does are usually terrorists. The government knows better than anyone else, and they obviously are looking out for everyones best interest, so let them do whatever they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh
You should have no problem answering questions from the police, letting your person, house, car, or other property be searched without a warrant, giving the government access to your emails, phone calls, voicemails, texts, IMs, thoughts, etc. In fact if you have nothing to hide you should have no problem being held indefinitely, tortured or having your daughter raped.
People who worry about what the government does are usually terrorists. The government knows better than anyone else, and they obviously are looking out for everyones best interest, so let them do whatever they want.
Just make sure I get my Idol, Biggest Loser and Pawn Stars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warrents
Warrents create a paper trail of what our police are looking for, what they suspect, what offical want to know what, If questions arise about police actions at an event, Proper Warrents can clarify and protect police actions. A bad or improper warrent makes it that much easier to catch out corrupt officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warrents
Other than that - I concur. Our papers, our effects - both can be and are digital. There is no excuse for treating them otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In any case, as another commenter mentioned, the process of getting a warrant does leave a paper trail even if they're rubber-stamped. That can be very valuable all by itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently the first thing the Bush administration did when they got the right to do whatever they wanted to do without a warrant was to spy on journalists to find out who was leaking info about the skeevy things the Bush administration was doing to the newspapers. Not saving NYC in the nick of time from mad bomber terrorists or whatnot. That's not to say the Obama administration is any better, we just haven't found out what they're doing yet.
I want things to go back to the way it was pre 9-11 and our collective national nervous breakdown and complete loss of balls and sanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
JAC is all he knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ambiguity of the DoJ is normal. Who knows what they think. Remember that many are appointed and were civil copyright or drug prosecution lawyers before.
Getting proper warrants for any intrusion into peoples private lives is necessary for the normal operation of democracy. It just doesn't work any other way.
Considering the non terrorist uses of the terrorist laws so far is a to dump present law allowing such. I agree with the pre 9-11 comment. Nothing was wrong except the terrorists themselves.
Kudos for Senator Patrick Leahy. May others follow this leadership. Please note all opposition and “Govern yourself accordingly.” (Couldn't resist the Hansmeier quote.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]