Quoted:
Quoted:
While I would cynically state that this bill only gives our current (and former) admin the legal justification for what they are already doing (see, e.g., Utah Datacenter), I nonetheless sent the following to my congresscritters. To the extent that you haven't abandoned the legislative process already, I'd suggest sending the same or similar to your own.
I was deeply disturbed to learn that Patrick Leahy’s already unconstitutional “internet security legislation” has been quietly rewritten to give a large number of government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law. More specifically, it is my understanding that this bill now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, and that a vote on his bill is scheduled for next week.
News reports on ths subject indicate that Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies –– including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission –– to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
This is an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. Further, it is a direct contradiction to prior press reports about this supposedly “necessary” bill, which boasted that it “provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant.”
I would remind you of the text of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:
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.
I would further remind you of the oath that you took when you were elected to your current office on behalf of the citizens of the State of Alabama:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Finally, I would remind you of the sage words of one our most memorable Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, who wisely wrote more than two centuries ago:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Simply put, there is no legitimate government purpose for this unconstitutional legislation. To the extent that legitimate suspicion or law enforcement need arises, electronically stored information can already be accessed through a valid search warrant. Simply allowing a large number of already power-hungry, executive-lead agencies to simply snoop, search and invade the privacy of the citizens that you serve without notice, however, would be a direct violation of the oath which you took to protect our liberties and freedoms against all enemies foreign and domestic. I must accordingly demand that you take all steps, including filibuster, to defeat this unnecessary and unconscionable bill.
Did you send it via email?
Yes. And fax.