f



Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-email-idUSKCN0XO1J7

The U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously on Wednesday to 
require law enforcement authorities to get a search warrant before asking 
technology companies to hand over old emails.

The bill's prospects in the Senate remain unclear, though the 419-0 vote 
in the House was likely to put pressure on the upper chamber to approve 
it.

Under the Email Privacy Act, which updates a decades-old law, authorities 
would have to get a warrant to access emails or other digital 
communications more than 180 days old. At present, agencies such as the 
U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission only 
need a subpoena to seek such data from a service provider.

Supporters of the legislation say it is needed to update the 1986 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Technology companies and 
privacy advocates say that statute was written before the rise of the 
Internet and so is outdated.

The issue of law enforcement access to private electronic communications 
has been at the center of an international debate.

This was reflected in the Justice Department´┐Żs high-profile pursuit of a 
court order earlier this year to force Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to help unlock 
an encrypted iPhone linked to one of the San Bernardino, California, 
shooters.

Separately, Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) earlier this month filed lawsuit in 
federal court against the Justice Department, alleging the government is 
using ECPA in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution.

The company argued ECPA is too often used to prevent the company from 
notifying its users, sometimes indefinitely, when investigators pry into 
emails and other data stored on remote servers.

More than a quarter of senators have endorsed similar legislation in the 
upper chamber to the House bill, including No. 2 Republican John Cornyn.

But it was unclear if Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, 
who holds jurisdiction over the legislation, intends to move it forward 
during an election year.

The Iowa Republican will review the House bill, consult with stakeholders 
and his committee "and decide where to go from there," a spokeswoman told 
Reuters in an email.

Senators Patrick Leahy and Mike Lee, the Democratic and Republican authors 
of the Senate bill, praised the House vote in a statement as "an historic 
step toward updating our privacy laws for the digital age" and urged quick 
consideration.


-- 
Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $19 trillion in the six 
years he has been in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood 
queer liberal democrat donors.

Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United 
States of America.  The only American president to deliberately import a 
lethal infectious disease from Africa, Ebola.

Loretta Fuddy, killed after she "verified" Obama's phony birth 
certificate.

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to 
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed 
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.

Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then 
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder 
in order to cover up his own ineptitude.

Obama continues his muslim goal of disarming America while ObamaCare 
increases insurance premiums 300% and leaves millions without health care.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
0
Leroy
5/5/2016 4:54:01 AM
comp.mail.misc 4531 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

3 Replies
379 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 17

On 5/4/2016 9:54 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-email-idUSKCN0XO1J7
>
> The U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously on Wednesday to
> require law enforcement authorities to get a search warrant before asking
> technology companies to hand over old emails.
> ...

And the purpose of this (proposed) law is what?

That law has already been on been on the books for over 225 years!

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be 
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, 
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place 
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
0
Peter
5/5/2016 3:33:39 PM
In comp.mail.misc, Peter Franks  <none@none.com> wrote:
> And the purpose of this (proposed) law is what?

End the six month loophole for getting email without a warrant.

http://www.businessinsider.com/when-can-the-government-read-your-email-2013-6?op=1

> That law has already been on been on the books for over 225 years!

I'm sure email stored on Yahoo! for a few years was a strong concern of
the founding fathers.

> Amendment IV
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be 

Apparently email stored on a third party system was not considered 
"papers" or "effects". Or maybe it was considered "reasonable" after it
had been there a while, starting to look like abandoned property?

I don't recall the reasoning. But it doesn't matter if the loophole is
closed.

Elijah
------
don't count your rights before they've been court tested
0
Eli
5/6/2016 9:24:36 PM
On 5/6/2016 2:24 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.mail.misc, Peter Franks  <none@none.com> wrote:
>> And the purpose of this (proposed) law is what?
>
> End the six month loophole for getting email without a warrant.
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/when-can-the-government-read-your-email-2013-6?op=1
>
>> That law has already been on been on the books for over 225 years!
>
> I'm sure email stored on Yahoo! for a few years was a strong concern of
> the founding fathers.
>
>> Amendment IV
>> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>
> Apparently email stored on a third party system was not considered
> "papers" or "effects".

What is an 'effect'?

What about email stored on a first party system?  Is that protected?  If 
yes, why?  Just because it is third party?

I have a safe-deposit box.  Is that not subject to protection?  It 
clearly holds my papers, but is held by a third party.

> Or maybe it was considered "reasonable" after it
> had been there a while, starting to look like abandoned property?

Yeah, we aren't talking about abandoned property though.  We are talking 
about accessing people's papers and effects based on a completely 
arbitrary 180 days.

Amendment IV is clear.  Government can't search or seize people's 
effects without out a warrant based on probable cause.  Period.

> I don't recall the reasoning. But it doesn't matter if the loophole is
> closed.

I'm not seeing it as a loophole.  It is an existing protection that is 
being violated by government.  If the judiciary had any sense of 
constitutional responsibility, they'd nullify any such law that enables 
subpoena-based searches on effects after 180 days.

>
> Elijah
> ------
> don't count your rights before they've been court tested
>

0
Peter
5/17/2016 5:59:14 PM
Reply: