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

[Paul Rumelhart]

I'm glad to see you're following this topic.  I wasn't attempting to smear Sen. Leahy, I'm not a Republican trying to one-up a Democrat.  I'm a Libertarian who read an article from a source I trusted that appeared to describe an invasion by Senator Leahy on our civil liberties.  That's why I posted it, I wanted to see how this Administration fared with respect to this issue.  It appears the article was wrong, and thus I was wrong for believing it at face value.  For that, I apologize.  

I route most of my traffic through a private VPN service that I pay for, in order to make sure my emails and the web pages I visit won't be intercepted en route.  I browse the web with Adblock and NoScript plugins for Firefox, because I don't want advertisers tracking me and it helps keep me safe from malware.  If I started using a cloud service to store data, I would encrypt it before uploading it.  All this so they won't catch me watching South Korean pop videos on YouTube.  I take my privacy online and civil liberties seriously, which is why the cnet article disturbed me so much.

So, kudos to Senator Leahy.  It might just make up for SOPA/PIPA.

Paul




________________________________
 From: Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
To: 'Paul Rumelhart' <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:00 PM
Subject: ECPA (was RE: [Vision2020] another litmus test)
 

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-privacy-faces-key-test-next-week
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/warrant-email-update
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase
http://www.rollcall.com/news/nojeim_regulatory_agencies_the_new_front_in_privacy_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-act-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-supporting-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/a787fad5/attachment-0001.html>