[Vision2020] ECPA (was RE: another litmus test)

[Saundra Lund]

I'm not convinced that cnet didn't get it wrong, but then again, the
conversation has become so convoluted, I'm not sure my understanding is
correct although I've been trying to follow it for quite some years now.

 

Paul, am I correctly assuming what you're referring to below is the very
long overdue updating of ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act)?
Before going further down this rabbit hole <g>, I want to make sure I'm
correctly understanding what you're referring to.

 

And, I also want to make sure we all understand that government & law
enforcement current opinion is that we essentially have no right to privacy
for things that live in the cloud and on servers we don't personally own.
There are exceptions like the 180 day rule (anything under 180 days old
requires a warrant; anything over 180 days old doesn't) & so forth.  But, if
there's anyone left who doesn't understand that "online privacy" is an
oxymoron, I can only urge that you get into the 21st century.

 

Senator Leahy has been working for a long time to update the ECPA to close
the existing loopholes that are miles wide in that 1986 legislation, IIRC,
which was back in the Dark Ages, from a computer consumer standpoint.

 

I have tons of articles on the topic, but for those who are just cutting
their teeth, check out the following for a little background on the Big
Picture aspect of our outdated ECPA:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/email-priv
acy-faces-key-test-next-week

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/warrant-em
ail-update

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justic
e-department-documents-show-huge-increase

http://www.rollcall.com/news/nojeim_regulatory_agencies_the_new_front_in_pri
vacy_protection-219291-1.html?zkPrintable=true

https://www.cdt.org/issue/wiretap-ecpa

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2074797,00.html

 

In any case, I certainly don't think the issue is as simple as your
erroneous (IMO) attempt to taint Sen. Leahy.  For another take on the cnet
piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/electronic-communications-privacy-a
ct-patrick-leahy_n_2166759.html

 

Not that I give it any more credence than I do the cnet hit piece, but there
are always more than one side to a story  J

 

For yet another interpretation somewhat at odds with cnet's, check out:

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

 

You also wrote:

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

 

Actually, what we all just need to do is keep pushing for our legislators to
update privacy protections to keep up with technology, and that includes
closing the enormous holes in ECPA.  Remember:

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. 

 

 

 

Saundra

Moscow, ID

 

No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.

~ Aesop (The Lion and the Mouse)

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Paul Rumelhart
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:02 AM
To: Sue Hovey
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121121/b3c0592d/attachment.html>