[Vision2020] another litmus test

Wed Nov 21 11:31:27 PST 2012

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/268929-leahy-denies-supporting-bill-to-allow-warrantless-email-searches

Leahy denies supporting bill to allow warrantless email searches
By Brendan Sasso - 11/20/12 02:22 PM ET

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."A Judiciary Committee aide confirmed to The Hill that Leahy "does not support broad carve-outs for warrantless email searches."
Leahy is pushing a bill that would revise the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Leahy's measure next week.
The original version of Leahy's bill would have toughened the privacy protections of ECPA. 
Under current law, police only need an administrative subpoena, issued without a judge's approval, to read emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old. Police simply swear an email is relevant to an investigation, and then obtain a subpoena to force an Internet company to turn it over.
Leahy's revision would require police to obtain warrants to read private emails, regardless of how old they are or whether they were opened. 
Leahy, one of the original co-sponsors of ECPA, said in a statement last year that "updating this law to reflect the realities of our time is essential to ensuring that our federal privacy laws keep pace with new technologies and the new threats to our security.”
But according to CNET, Leahy agreed to weaken the bill in order to appease Republicans and law enforcement groups.
The site reported that a new version of his legislation exempted more than 22 federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve, from the warrant requirement. The bill would give the FBI and the Homeland Security Department even more extensive powers in some circumstances, allowing them to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying the owner or a judge, according to CNET.
The Judiciary Committee aide explained that discussions between lawmakers and interest groups on Leahy's bill are ongoing. The aide said it is possible that there will be "tweaks" to the bill before the committee's markup next week, but that major revisions are unlikely. 
The aide said it is possible that CNET was referring to a draft of the bill circulated by other lawmakers or interest groups, but that Leahy would not support any similar proposal.
"Ideas from many sources always circulate [before] a markup [for discussion], but Sen. Leahy does NOT support such an exception for #ECPA search warrants," Leahy's account tweeted.
The account tweeted that "the whole point of the Leahy reforms is [to] require search warrants [for government] to access email stored with [third] party service providers."
Chris Calabrese, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who has been following the issue, said he had seen the draft bill cited by CNET, but he said he was never under the impression that Leahy supported it.
"There was a lot of language floating around," Calabrese said. He added that the ACLU would not support any proposal that includes broad exceptions for civil enforcement.
"That undercuts the whole purpose of the bill," he said.
Calabrese noted that the proposal cited by CNET is similar to amendments proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary Committee's top Republican.
Grassley expressed skepticism about creating new barriers for police investigations at a committee meeting in September.
"I have heard concerns about this amendment from state and local law enforcement officials. These officials are concerned with the impact this amendment may have on law enforcement operations," Grassley said. "Specifically, I have heard concerns about how this could impact cases where time is of the essence, namely kidnapping and child abduction cases." 
Grassley said he asked for input from the Justice Department, and officials told him the measure could "adversely affect the department’s activities."

________________________________
 From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> 
Cc: "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] another litmus test

Senator Leahy has backed off from his attempt to put through a bill that allows searches of emails without warrants, or possibly cnet got the story wrong.  As of this moment, there is nothing to protest.

We all just need to keep a watchful eye out for any other attempts to do this kind of thing.

Paul

________________________________
 From: Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>; Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] another litmus test

Any pickets planned for around here?  Would be a good idea to stand with them somewhere. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 21, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act), the controversial roving wiretaps sections are still in there.  They have a little more oversight now, but they are still there.  Can you point me to the section(s) that was removed?  If you can point me to such a thing, I would be relieved, because the Obama I originally voted for might actually exist.
>
>Here's an article from The Nation that came out on the day of the first vote.  It didn't pass that day, but did minutes before it was set to expire.  It paints a different picture of President Obama with relation to the Patriot Act.  Here is the article:
>
>http://www.thenation.com/blog/158381/obama-takes-wrong-turn-civil-liberties-adopting-worse-patriot-act-stance-gop
>
>Here's another article from the Huffington Post
 talking about how Obama signed into law the reauthorization on 28-Feb-2011, after Rand Paul had unsuccessfully tried to force a change to the bill that would "diminish the government's ability to monitor individual actions", because he thought the bill in its current form was "an abuse of privacy rights".  According to this article, President Obama was on the wrong side of this debate.
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html
>
>I really wish we had had this conversation *before* the election.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>To: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> 
>Cc: "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:09 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] another litmus test
> 
>
>We are talking two versions of the Patriotic Act; the one under King George XLII and the one under President Obama.
>
>
>Yes.  President Obama did sign and approve continuation of the Patriot Act AFTER AUTHORITY FOR WARRANTLESS SEARCHES WAS REMOVED.
>
>
>You know . . . fourth amendment and all.
>
>
>Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
>
>"Moscow Cares"
>http://www.MoscowCares.com
>  
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
> 
>
>On Nov 21, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>And so far not a lot of help from the courts which ought disallow such things on constitutional grounds.
>>
>>w.
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's called Obama's Patriot Act now. He signed the NDAA. He's legitimized the Bush policies. It's a little late to be fooling ourselves about him, isn't it?
>>>
>>>Case of beer of choice says it passes, with a lot of blather about Safety. 
>>>
>>>Sunil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>From: thansen at moscow.com
>>>Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:03:54 -0800
>>>To: godshatter at yahoo.com
>>>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>
>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] another litmus test
>>>
>>>
>>>Unlike Bush's Patriot Act that gave law enforcement agencies authority to thoroughly search private property jus' 'cuz they're bored.
>>>
>>>
>>>Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>"Moscow Cares"
>>>http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>  
>>>Tom Hansen
>>>Moscow, Idaho
>>> 
>>>
>>>On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>There's a bill going through the Senate that will be a good litmus test for our President and our democratically-controlled Senate with respect to civil liberties.  Senator Leahy (D) of Vermont introduced a bill before that Senate that required a warrant to search email.  The Justice Department and some law enforcement groups didn't like it because they oppose the warrant requirement.  So Senator Leahy reworked the bill to allow access to emails to 22 different governmental organizations *without* the need for a search warrant.
>>>>
>>>>This bill goes up for a vote in the Senate next week.  Let's see if we are still on the path to a totalitarian government or not.  Will it pass?  Will our President veto it if it gets to him?  Stay tuned.
>>>>
>>>>Here is some information on the
 bill:
>>>>
>>>>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>=======================================================
>>>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>=======================================================
>>>=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
>>>=======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>=======================================================
>>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>=======================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>       
       http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net
>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121121/6234b07b/attachment-0001.html>