Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/20/2012 5:19:38 AM EST
A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

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.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:20:45 AM EST
You'd be surprised what a federal subpoena could already do.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:35:44 AM EST
Are not a lot of people just opening offshore e-mail accounts where they have their e-mails sent and stored out of the purview of the Feds to easily thwart this already?

If so all then are doing is catching the dumb ones while the ones they really should be worried about are sailing under their radar.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:37:32 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:41:01 AM EST
they better not open anything or they will get some nasty virus's!
i get alot of spam
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:43:37 AM EST
I find irony in the fact that "Leaky Leahy" is proposing this.....
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:46:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By Socio:
Are not a lot of people just opening offshore e-mail accounts where they have their e-mails sent and stored out of the purview of the Feds to easily thwart this already?

If so all then are doing is catching the dumb ones while the ones they really should be worried about are sailing under their radar.

You think the NSA isn't already intercepting international communication?
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:47:26 AM EST
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:49:25 AM EST
As mentioned, a federal prosecutor basically gets whatever they want in terms of electronic communications as it is, at least going back a certain period (180 days?), and you won't necessarily even know about it (notification requirements are lax).

... I run my own e-mail infrastructure, so it would be somewhat challenging to avoid that whole notification issue, but if they really want my Nigerian spam and a few million geeky mailing list posts I suppose they could just ask
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:51:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!


Well, you know, you can get some Pretty Good Privacy
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:51:34 AM EST
I assumed they were doing this already.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:54:32 AM EST
That's why I octuply-Enigma encrypt all my sekrit plans!

Yes, i know Enigma is not secure, and 8X-enigma even less so. ;-)
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:00:48 AM EST
I'm long on:

PGP (GnuGP)
Thunderbird for Firefox
Tor Browser
Truecrypt
Startpage

It's better than nothing...
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:06:44 AM EST
Originally Posted By qualityhardware:
I'm long on:

PGP (GnuGP)
Thunderbird for Firefox
Tor Browser
Truecrypt
Startpage

It's better than nothing...


Until encryption is regulated and pegged at 64bit ciphers. We'll have an underground market for software!

Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:06:49 AM EST
FINALLY we're safe from terrorist, drug dealers and generic/unnamed ne'er do wells!

This is great news!
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:10:29 AM EST
Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!


What about documents purely stored with ISPs and fully encrypted through the provider?
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:10:54 AM EST
You guys should really read the book "1984"

It's remarkable how many of the elements in that book are taking shape before our eyes.

A government that has no need for a warrant to spy on its citizens is a soviet type government.

We are truly seeing the beginning of the end of our country.

Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:14:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By cyborg543:
You guys should really read the book "1984"

It's remarkable how many of the elements in that book are taking shape before our eyes.

A government that has no need for a warrant to spy on its citizens is a soviet type government.

We are truly seeing the beginning of the end of our country.



Nah, the beginning was a long time ago.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:15:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/20/2012 6:19:50 AM EST by cyborg543]
Here's how the government works:


1. ruin something and create disaster

2. declare state of emergency

3. expand power to cope with emergency

4. go to no. 1



these teeth that the citizens are putting into the government's head are going to chew their ass off one day

how hard is it to understand?

It's just one simgle loop of logic, the whole system of government was originally formed around the idea, and yet nobody understands it.

this is the first country in history that died of stupidity



Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:29:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/20/2012 6:30:10 AM EST by ske714]
Originally Posted By nigmalg:
Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!


What about documents purely stored with ISPs and fully encrypted through the provider?


Email Privacy Concerns

Good info here @ FindLaw
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:32:37 AM EST
I didn't see your thread when I posted mine about this.

+1
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:33:22 AM EST
Guilty until proven innocent.
TSA style of security will rule the land.
Got to love the once size fits all society....

You younger folks are fucked...
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:47:33 AM EST
It shocks me that you people still have the illusion of freedom...
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:50:03 AM EST
Like this shit hasn't been going on all along?


About 5 years ago I got a call from a business associate telling me that I'd probably be getting a visit from .gov about some emails that were sent back and forth. The associate (client) is a friggin' defense contractor for God's sake and had been exchanging emails with the US Military (for God's sake, bunch of friggin' idiots...) and they had used too many "naughty words" in too many emails and got contacted on the .mil side by the NSA.

.Mil contacted my client and alerted them that they were going to need a sit-down chat with them and a couple of nice NSA agents, who incidentally were contacting EVERYONE on said client's email address list to review a few pieces of mail. Once they figured out that it was all in the interest of R&D in a friggin' .gov financed project it was all OK. (really?...really?) Like those idiots couldn't have called DCASR and confirmed that there was a CONTRACT for this work??? WTF?

Nonetheless, it sure as hell put everyone on notice that ALL emails are routinely monitored.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:50:20 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:52:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/20/2012 6:53:30 AM EST by AR4U]
Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Originally Posted By cyborg543:
You guys should really read the book "1984"

It's remarkable how many of the elements in that book are taking shape before our eyes.

A government that has no need for a warrant to spy on its citizens is a soviet type government.

We are truly seeing the beginning of the end of our country.



Nah, the beginning was a long time ago.


This is really just the steady progression.


ETA: How could a law such as this possibly pass judicial review?
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:53:20 AM EST
big gov., fuck yeah

Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:53:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By pale_pony:
Like this shit hasn't been going on all along?


About 5 years ago I got a call from a business associate telling me that I'd probably be getting a visit from .gov about some emails that were sent back and forth. The associate (client) is a friggin' defense contractor for God's sake and had been exchanging emails with the US Military (for God's sake, bunch of friggin' idiots...) and they had used too many "naughty words" in too many emails and got contacted on the .mil side by the NSA.

.Mil contacted my client and alerted them that they were going to need a sit-down chat with them and a couple of nice NSA agents, who incidentally were contacting EVERYONE on said client's email address list to review a few pieces of mail. Once they figured out that it was all in the interest of R&D in a friggin' .gov financed project it was all OK. (really?...really?) Like those idiots couldn't have called DCASR and confirmed that there was a CONTRACT for this work??? WTF?

Nonetheless, it sure as hell put everyone on notice that ALL emails are routinely monitored.


I have had the FBI contact a client who traveled abroad several months prior to inform them that a foreign state had installed a trojan on his laptop which had been forwarding copies of all his email to said foreign intel. They claimed to have been monitoring the whole situation since 0 hour, and then graciously "offered" to come by and secure said laptop and some associated paraphernalia that same afternoon.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:53:41 AM EST
Maybe they can setup my spam filters better, the spammage still gets through sometimes
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:53:58 AM EST


I thought anyone who opposes this kind of thing was to labeled a "moby" ?

Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:54:00 AM EST
Some of this shit is getting out of control.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:55:10 AM EST
I guess the Patriot Act made Local Law-enforcement jealous?

The Government, local, state, federal, has found it easier to assume Guilt, than to prove it.

Here's to some Power-tripping 'Good-Intentioned' Bureaucrats, I hope I never piss one of them off

Can someone explain the New definition of Liberty?

Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:59:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/20/2012 7:16:19 AM EST by NagOrzo15-1]
––––-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK––––-

Version: 6.5.8ckt

mQGiBFCruIkRBADqddI4o16HAhEQlSxd5rSv76Vps0Uh­1lzYR+HQVHtKxiEzP6W4
hjC5EJGpTUpSDw4KKCOkfgTjGgnHYbbniQ+ITq+QEUG8­8+jbjuFDzwKE0d3Yovx9
0nHMurm+Gd8WkUbmIhzu6I7mNBTmK/ZBiyBa2iPGjcRcen4dwx3HF3QswQCg/7UK
8w0EtWLMNQL5Hj4Q4SdrW30EAL5h0xjWnvXQI+56ZGgE­F9EafVmt6ds3WKUGhV23
IOOhBiSotGntb+PYEbBZ3lmsLk7dtLsLrk9/dvpku7GMCxzvrFn60vXfC4LFgqPI
IyO0//WIs+cEKejMTtCVoGic8+ycsfqeIUY1MvewfeVmYk2Af71­5QxJfqRimWD+4
W7t6BADLC3PJCJ3umc12yE85HEc7iZjBu7aTNLQqB1gQ­CrALp/huxjE4NmYjB/zT
7fqizok8jzSTVFq4QSDzQPYQvJR+Jh3O669dHJv4FvPn­hzgO8F/hF4JyvZSP6Rsf
DSaSMP7L2qbr/UJcfdvcPbEMRfVPCNOFirVmqVy24x/o9Ic4ZLQrQVIxNS5DT00g
VXNlciBOYWdvcnpvMTUtMSA8bmFnb3J6b0Bhb2wuY29t­PokAUwQQEQIAEwUCUKu4
iQkLCQoIAgcDAQQCGQEACgkQ+0eCyvS3cNHhMwCfc5Ou­sPDdQ9AHTU3TxSLUk91d
wzUAoLypvq5M44dvxehHk/GdGK8nyxa2uQQNBFCruTYQEAD6O9S/wm0Hw2V5qyOH
drh4+dGCKjjDrsFzqlDur4h9+V4OlrgANgV18P/ShJYS1vb2rENpQgGhpLQAH3lm
2OdYZSRZ57lUTOQwsFzYoSD1gHRE3BOQI3Hgh0FiU3/oLR2sGELoNYAaRCn+bgHl
1xktlrj2wgTN906JrlegXrmgQFTPvcy+pH9KpGzcjwkB­KJpiXRNkaXbT4JWcaUcV
6JSfHs6ac2V2HsCn2floiPWQGWoKIdo6S5ebaLCCclbs­lvJwjt1Zgyo0lVoKblcB
DXl0kGy4wbTG3tcB/a+dLaYMvDjOP2hk56qeI6HGHcd2OemczYBmLAYrHUC94A­iv
4uVniWVpNsfGLH95vGmklXQ0ApC5tgW98Hc/oZTvzk4dPRpwtkXe+dnplEvau9WB
rMVU8rUiRn/6HflDh9oZYuw3rFz+JX9xhVWBh8AndpXObcZR0kq/G4IzcdxgZ13i
tqnVGgtZPpx84YvSHg3XZedB3uSI8lVpHF/p5vc1t1EAnV8Op+d5taHchoIfkE3p
Y8S1rbD2bUfQ0EqBo7PrgKq69EUHgLGS+pl2PpD1hJ0+­y2W0kx2a3p211POjhgTG
euT+wSulXRLZ4klFv1N0g8DY3OoZs9Eb7f6HCe9+pjvW­8Wg3GX3kpZ7eTnzY/Ob9
VUd+vFcLWEFGN8ojUFtrorHC2wACAhAA2kjzY+y4aSR0­syBjCeT77GFJE/oR6+HD
I5dvlGOPY3mXqwLsOhgeItfi25xOVtom/dk+ILH+HdLPDO2d79XrpGy60FBXaLqB
FvBAJYaDA424BeT/JpH2iWPwjV54pmKnO3uLnGH6Smx4TUm0Ov1P20uDUludW­LFk
M/bVEVd3AC/25DldqAsyL6qIcabI+0rKLac2wlR1+aWlA9nxvr6pa77+/8j+QPsd
R5H6rVT+KoyfKFBcj0DSBJw8d9Q/RYM5jo/rt6UHRM1KCHC1Hz5ITiEDf+PHcW6J
1lhDZ7gWloqsTS5TKRA2cGcuHU8+fRJigeYe4rE6G8yf­hhDd9kQbHAtMiosV9/pJ
qyCgTrnMgqR0TLAmrPg78h2vVS9PR+x/3CXsvf2tagDiLt0UnOg2uW6UEcM/PdrO
v9jJkn9V+OlXQ3jOxI6Bib8YXMJDOBtxRn7sVtyMSeiQ­8AjxF4W2KXv4gPanI5Ic
qxlDi93QUpxfqK6DMJH1LE54lxfx/pH7dPDNie491T38QlNlpux3zsvukzINbGN+
Xerbhpvq68jxgsU9PshMpNQMCwHi8oDz8MqH6G6TDssX­w1dp7Zyy/4EUf2xu974g
2+lVseelhPTQu4kztA5fqpO21b55XL5Hl7wgRmp7iE/Sefk12fJy3Vhh7UNJ/I7Q
BpWBAmxDu6KJAEYEGBECAAYFAlCruTYACgkQ+0eCyvS3­cNGMcQCfe8kpA2mDXRxb
tE+SS2h3Cu1G75EAoJsKpgOV8hIk431XJQr6w0whoh+5
=Lw7M
––––-END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK––––-




And that's all I have to say about that.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:00:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!

Correct, this is like being upset at the mail man for reading post cards.

Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:01:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/20/2012 7:02:02 AM EST by learath]
Originally Posted By Hedonist:

Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!

Correct, this is like being upset at the mail man for reading post cards.



More like your nosey neighbor (who is a felon) going into your mailbox and searching for postcards, then reading them.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:05:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By avenj:
Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!


Well, you know, you can get some Pretty Good Privacy


nope.. they put in a back door for the feds.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:06:11 AM EST
hitting reset is seeming more an more like a good idea as time goes on. and 5 years ago i was scared shitless hoping we wouldn't have to.

who the fuck do these people think they are?


is there any decent south american countries i can go to, be realitivly safe, be left the fuck alone, and live comfortably with a couple hundred thousand in my pocket?
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:07:59 AM EST
Originally Posted By Fat_McNasty:
Originally Posted By avenj:
Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!


Well, you know, you can get some Pretty Good Privacy


nope.. they put in a back door for the feds.


Even using 2.6.2 or the cyber knights templar version? I doubt it.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:08:59 AM EST
Originally Posted By ronnl001:
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?
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:09:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/20/2012 7:10:29 AM EST by nigmalg]
Originally Posted By ske714:
Originally Posted By nigmalg:
Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!


What about documents purely stored with ISPs and fully encrypted through the provider?


Email Privacy Concerns

Good info here @ FindLaw


Their basis for the lower expectation of privacy was because of the plain text nature of email communication. That's why I brought up the example of them looking at secured ISP storage (such as Google Docs and other encrypted cloud storage).

Email privacy is derived from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is governed by the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. Unfortunately, given the open nature of email mentioned above (passing through several computers and stored at multiple locations), the expectation of privacy may be less for email, especially email at work, than for other forms of communication.


I don't see how there would be a low expectation of privacy for encrypted cloud documents using the email philosophy for raping the fourth amendment.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:11:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
"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"

Oh to hell with that! Just look around at anything and everything as long as it remotely has to do with terrorism or the War on Drugs (tm).

Yep. Sickening where we now find ourselves. Oh well, the masses have their bread and circuses...
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:12:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/20/2012 7:14:45 AM EST by NagOrzo15-1]
Originally Posted By nigmalg:
Originally Posted By ske714:
Originally Posted By nigmalg:
Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!


What about documents purely stored with ISPs and fully encrypted through the provider?


Email Privacy Concerns

Good info here @ FindLaw


Their basis for the lower expectation of privacy was because of the plain text nature of email communication. That's why I brought up the example of them looking at secured ISP storage (such as Google Docs and other encrypted cloud storage).

Email privacy is derived from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is governed by the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. Unfortunately, given the open nature of email mentioned above (passing through several computers and stored at multiple locations), the expectation of privacy may be less for email, especially email at work, than for other forms of communication.


I don't see how there would be a low expectation of privacy for encrypted cloud documents using the email philosophy for raping the fourth amendment.


Your expectation of privacy is only what you can reasonably EXPECT.

Go read the TOS of those cloud services They provide that they will provide cleartext access to your data on request / subpoena / etc. by the .gov. Ergo, you do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy on those services unless you encrypt things before sending them there.

Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:13:20 AM EST
Look forward to Gestapo style security unless you are an illegal.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:15:16 AM EST
To be more clear, they already do this. This just brings it out into the light, which they might as well do since nobody is going to really care.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:16:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By Hedonist:

Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!

Correct, this is like being upset at the mail man for reading post cards.



A better analogy would be the mailman opening your envelope and taking a look at your letter. While "plain text" sounds like it's just open for viewing, most emails are encoded to ease transportation just the same. It does involve some amount of work to read the message, although very little... sort of like opening a piece of paper sealed with a light adhesive.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:21:30 AM EST
Your expectation of privacy is only what you can reasonably EXPECT.

Go read the TOS of those cloud services They provide that they will provide cleartext access to your data on request / subpoena / etc. by the .gov. Ergo, you do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy on those services unless you encrypt things before sending them there.


The legislation the OP mentioned does not cite terms of use policies. It appears this law would apply regardless of an ISP having a pro-privacy policy.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:24:26 AM EST
Originally Posted By nigmalg:
Your expectation of privacy is only what you can reasonably EXPECT.

Go read the TOS of those cloud services They provide that they will provide cleartext access to your data on request / subpoena / etc. by the .gov. Ergo, you do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy on those services unless you encrypt things before sending them there.


The legislation the OP mentioned does not cite terms of use policies. It appears this law would apply regardless of an ISP having a pro-privacy policy.


You need to update your newspeak citizen! It's "pro-criminal"!
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:26:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By Hedonist:

Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!

Correct, this is like being upset at the mail man for reading post cards.



???

I realize that a certain percentage of arfcom HAS TO present a contrary opinion

but you need to show a little self restraint once in a while, it gets silly
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:29:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By cyborg543:
Originally Posted By Hedonist:

Originally Posted By ske714:
News flash!!! EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE!!!

Correct, this is like being upset at the mail man for reading post cards.



???

I realize that a certain percentage of arfcom HAS TO present a contrary opinion

but you need to show a little self restraint once in a while, it gets silly


Lets take a looksie at what the Justice Department had to say:

James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.


Notice the keyword there, stored e-mail. We're far past plain-text communication here. The postcard analogy is incorrect.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:29:54 AM EST
Thanks, I just emailed my two Senators with a version of this well written note.


Originally Posted By ronnl001:
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.


Link Posted: 11/20/2012 7:31:31 AM EST
I tell you what, George Orwell got it right....
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top