Senator Jeff Sessions Looks To Blast A Giant Hole In The 4th Amendment For 'Emergency' Response
from the yikes dept
Yesterday we wrote about an already troubling attempt by Senator John Cornyn to attach a dangerous amendment to the Senate's ECPA reform bill that would massively expand what kinds of electronic communications the FBI has access to (as we noted, the FBI already pretends it has access to this very info, so really this law would be papering over the FBI's illegal collection of this info). But there's another amendment, put forth by Senator Jeff Sessions, that is just as, if not more, troubling. It's basically creating a massive loophole in the 4th Amendment, saying that any and all basic oversight can be tossed out the second the FBI declares the situation to be an "emergency."Even a long-term law enforcement guy, James Trainum, is worried about the impact of such a law:The amendment would allow the government to bypass the warrant requirement in times of claimed emergency. Specifically, it would mandate that providers turn over sought-after data in response to a claimed emergency from federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. Under current law, companies are permitted, but not required, to comply with such emergency — and warrantless — requests for data.
There are two huge problems with this proposal. First, it appears to be responding to a problem that doesn’t exist. Companies already have discretion to make emergency disclosures to governmental officials, and proponents of the legislation have failed to identify a single instance in which providers failed to disclose sought-after information in response to an actual, life-threatening emergency. To the contrary, the data suggest that providers do in fact regularly cooperate in response to emergency requests. (See the discussion here.)
Second, and of particular concern, the emergency disclosure mandate operates with no judicial backstop. None. Whatsoever. This is in direct contrast with the provisions in both the Wiretap Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that require companies to comply with emergency disclosure orders, but then also require subsequent post-hoc review by a court.
As we've discussed, back in April the House voted unanimously to fix ECPA. And while the Senate has dragged its feet until now, it's disappointing to see Senators like Sessions and Cornyn now try to attach dangerous amendments to ECPA reform that basically destroy whatever good that is in there. Both of those Senators should be ashamed -- and their colleagues should reject these proposals.In my 27 year career in law enforcement, the majority of which I spent as a homicide detective with the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., I sought and obtained communication records in the majority of my investigations. I encountered no problems obtaining these records under the current law and in the rare, truly emergency situation, the law posed no undue burden. I have found that complying with the requirements to obtain records in a non-emergency situation actually helped me build stronger cases because, by following the rules, the evidence was unassailable in court. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues, for whatever reason, would try to take the shortcuts that the new law would encourage.
Changing the emergency exception law is unnecessary. The law permits providers to disclose private communications to the government whenever they have a good-faith belief that such disclosure is required to respond to an emergency. Furthermore, emergency exceptions are quite uncommon. For example, in 2014 Google received only 342 emergency requests, compared to 20,280 subpoenas and search warrants, and information was provided in response to the vast majority of those emergency requests. If a provider finds a problem with the request, law enforcement can always revise it to address concerns.
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, ecpa reform, emergencies, jeff sessions, warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Unless...
But hey, we don't hold them responsible as citizens anyways so what is the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The United States of Emergency
Said emergency already exists, and has existed for nearly 37 years: it was declared by President Carter and remains in effect. It's not the only one, either -- far from it: Special report: America's perpetual state of emergency
So if this becomes law, it will instantly hand the FBI unlimited, unreviewed, perpetual access to anything it wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The United States of Emergency
They are now in line to push illegal laws as quick and as fast as they can to foist their control over everything and will not stop until blood spills.
Everything is in place.
Peaceable assembly is ignored by both citizens and government.
Unrest is increasing.
Government has been creating a self fulfilling prophecy of driving citizens to insurrection in the name of wanting to stop one.
The actions and words of the founders of the nation are not only massively ignored but sullied by the average American citizen they have been made literally illegal by the American government under the terrorism farce.
We are massively importing non-citizens to help water down the principals and ideals of liberty with people that understand nothing other than corruption and socialism.
The Justice system is anything but, Judges regularly allow the government to submit illegally and illegitimately gathered evidence in the name of "good faith". They accept secret laws as tools to imprison citizens, and do not require law enforcement to know the very laws they were trained to enforce.
Judges work through politics instead of justice and make rulings according to race, religion, or party affiliation rather than the intent and letter of the law.
America is wholesomely fucked up right now and is in a position to replace Germany on the world stage as a great tyrant the same as Russia and China right now.
The people around the world are clamoring for one world governments and a bastard king to rule over them, installed by a secretive but rich and powerful banker elite. The lies of global economy and multiculturalism is eating everything away and their champions oblivious to their own loses as the vanguard to poverty!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The United States of Emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The United States of Emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The United States of Emergency
You'e not fooling anyone, AC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The United States of Emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The United States of Emergency
Has nothing to do with a tin foil hat, not only has these things been explained by the founders, there are a lot of news and video sources making it very clear.
Tinfoil hats are for people operating with more certainty than it reasonable with very little to no reliable information. The corruption in this case is a matter of public fucking record!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The United States of Emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The United States of Emergency
- Ad hominem attack... Check.
- Dismissive label applied to commenter w/o providing any factual argument to refute commenter's position... Check.
- Surveillance-State and State-corruption apologist tone to own comments... Check.
Is that you "Whatever"? If not, can you pop your head over your cube wall and tell him everyone at TD says hi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The United States of Emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The United States of Emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The United States of Emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now after this "compromise", the Senate version is introducing the emergency loophole again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bridge too far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A bridge too far?
This law is not about gaining new power, it is about solidifying it so that a future judge will not have an easy time trying to enforce the 4th amendment in cases encouraging them to give up and act as nothing other than a kangaroo court. Just imagine the first Judge that says, law invalid, it is in breach of the 4th... they will just "talk" to the judge in chambers and the judge will either submit as a pasty or become very worried about his career.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt whining about something they don't understand and pushing tinfoil hat nonsense. I'm so surprised. Not.
Is this Techdirt? https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/19/d7/03/19d703df446b37acc5825a54f6c5615f.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me explain how this works: if you think we're wrong about something, *you provide evidence* and *explain why we're wrong*. When you just say "wrong" and add an ad hominem attack, it doesn't increase your credibility any.
Multiple experts have now written about this amendment raising concerns, including law professors and law enforcement folks. If you have an alternative take, please provide it. Otherwise, it's difficult to take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ok then, how about you simply express why you think this amendment is a good idea?
Thus far all you have contributed to this discussion is childish insults. Although I doubt it, it is possible you you might have an opposing viewpoint which deserves consideration, so let's hear it, Skippy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This isn't difficult: provide *any* evidence at all that what we wrote is a misreading of the amendment presented here. Ad hominem insults do not count.
Is it really that difficult to prove how what we said was wrong? Because if it is, then that seems to suggest that you're full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right now those in favor of the 4th are against the 2nd and those in favor of the 2nd are against the 4th.
Very few patriots currently walk American Soil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um...
The US has turned into the same feudal hodgepodge of corporate kings and nobles that we were trying to escape. The new bosses are worse than the old bosses in that they can disavow being bosses, hence treat us common schlubs less like vassals and more like cattle.
All our guns are doing us no good, because we're too stupid to realize we need to organize and resist. We keep telling ourselves that it gets better, or worse that God wants us to obey our torturey, drone-strikey, surveillancey, police-statey lords because the bible explicitly endorses the current regents. (e.g. Romans 13)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um...
And no, the bible does not endorse the current regents, where in the world to you get that idea? The Bible refers to all government as beasts because they usurp the authority of God.
And also remember, its says to give what is owed. A tyrant is owed nothing but the pointy end. And last but not least, not all things in the Bible are what you think they are. Wisdom is given to those legitimately seeking it and held at bay from those looking to abuse it. If the ruler is in Service to God, you will know it, and if not, no need to heed a single bit of their authority.
The bible is a great starting book and helpful to edify the lay folk, but the faithful will transcend its pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bible endorses the state, even if it's run by tyrants.
As far as I'm concerned, and our framers, it is up to us to rely on rationality as to whether our officials are paragons or tyrants, but according to the bible disobedience to them is sin.
Unless you are saying you get to pick and choose which scriptures to obey or to disregard, you get to decide for yourself what is right or wrong. Or what is parable or literal.
Neither the Catholic Church nor the State of Texas (including its current dominionist governor) feel parishioners should be allowed to make those decisions, rather should practice obedience to the last. Of course they're arguably tyrants, themselves.
I don't follow the bible, myself, incidentally. I just know a lot of it and about it, given it's used often to justify atrocity and inequality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bible endorses the state, even if it's run by tyrants.
So, then, how to address the tyrant problem?
For the most part even tyrants want an orderly society, so live a quiet orderly life.
Okay, what about democracy? Ah, that. Well per the democratic system we the people are in charge and the people we vote for are, in theory, our representatives to carry out the will of the people in line with the law of the land. Does that mean we're the tyrants, then?
Well we seem to have outsourced the actual governance and governing of the state to tyrannical people on the grounds that our thought leaders said so, i.e. we're too lazy to think for ourselves and have been lulled into partisan binary politics because thinking is hard; it's easier to simply pick one of two sides.
I've always said we need to hold our representatives to account and keep their feet to the fire and it emphatically DOESN'T contradict my faith; they're supposed to be our servants, not our masters. We appear to have forgotten that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Um...
This is what you take away from reading the prior post? How sad.
Apparently you misunderstood a large portion of what the post had to say about the "feudal hodgepodge of corporate kings and nobles".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um...
Therein lies the contradiction at the heart of a democracy, organisation needs leaders, leaders try to impose their wills on the people, and we are back with kings and nobles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Um...
You can't impose reform at the point of a gun; you can't govern, even as a tyrant, without the consent of the people. When the people have had enough of this nonsense you will see change. At the moment they are willing to put up with it so the best a violent attempt at revolution will achieve is dead bodies on the deck and a lot of good old boys in jail on terrorism charges. Put the boomsticks away, they're not the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standard trolling. Try to manipulate discourse by pushing people to operate on their groundless narratives.
To the trolls - put up or shut up. You make accusations? Give your damn proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're all "emergencies."
We're all terrorists and spies.
There's Child porn involved.
The agents are acting in good faith.
Always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treasonous Fraction of American Turdstains
Today in the US Jeff Sessions (and his ilk) in his attempt(s) at subverting the US Constitution is labeled -- US Senator.
In past eras in the US Jeff Sessions and his Constitution subverting ilk would have been labeled what they truly are -- traitors.
Swearing an oath to protect and defend something does not mean you tear it down from within based upon specious claims for expedient motives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bar? What bar?
On top of what Rich Kulawiec noted above about how the US has been in a 'state of emergency' for several decades now with no end in sight, by setting the 'bar' low enough that simply claiming an emergency is enough to trigger the law they might as well come out and admit 'We think the fourth is outdated and shouldn't apply any time it gets in the way of what we want to do'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead they will have the police tyranny they seem to desire so badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel that it is in our best interest to convince Texas republicans to reconsider their decision to secede from the United States. Is there a petition for that somewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]