Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Senate committee approves email privacy bill

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Senate committee approves email privacy bill


www.wthitv .com

Search warrant needed before email review

WASHINGTON (AP) — Over objections from law enforcement officials, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation Thursday that would require police to obtain a search warrant from a judge before they can review a person's emails or other electronic communications.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Of course nothing is final... it appears ever.


The bill makes it slightly more difficult for the government to access the content of a consumer's emails and private files from Google, Yahoo, Facebook and other Internet providers. Under the current law, the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a warrant is needed only for emails less than 6 months old.

The committee chairman and the bill's sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said digital files on a computer should have the same safeguards as paper files stored in a home. Americans "face even greater threats to their digital privacy, as we witness the explosion of new technologies and the expansion of the government's surveillance powers," Leahy said during the committee's vote on the legislation. The full Senate is expected to vote on the bill early next year. A House committee hasn't yet voted on a similar bill.


It's sort of amazing when our government makes an about face.

Especially since the drive towards more powerful and authoritarian intrusion of government into private communications seemed to be running at about a gajillion miles an hour..... so what made this abrupt change in stance become suddenly "desirable" I wonder?


Passage of the bill comes just a few weeks after the stunning resignation of David Petraeus as the head of the CIA over an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. The case focused the public's attention on how easy it is for federal agents to access people's email accounts.


Well... it can't be that, right? Unless that is what AP wants us to think.

Hopefully this can take root and persevere in the face of military-industrial complex lobbyists... but you never know... they might have embarrassing secrets in their emails too!



www.wthitv .com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 29-11-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Well justice strikes again.

There have been a few nice things to come out of the justice system lately. I like the idea of law enforcement requiring a warrant to search ANY private property. Be it digital or not.

As far as the issue being done, I doubt it. Those who wish to be able to read all your stuff, barge into your home and spy on you will probably fight this tooth and nail.

And there are quite a few of them.

~Tenth



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Frankly, I am afraid to get my hopes up.

There's still plenty of fodder in the media to promote the idea that we need to live in fear.

But ... at least for now.... hooray for liberty... which does not exist without privacy....



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
What about NSA and CIA and FBI? Are they "police"?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


The Patriot Act covers domestic spying for Federal Agencies like that NSA and FBI and I would think they would be exempt from something like this.

~Tenth



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Forgive me, because I've been on an Assange binge today.

But here's the problem.

No matter what regulations are placed on the governments ability to snoop on us via internet, the data is still there. All of the data is being harvested and stored permanently. It doesn't cost so much for this type of storage space anymore, even Libya is able to afford it:

Wikileaks spyfiles


When citizens overthrew the dictatorships in Egypt and Libya this year, they uncovered listening rooms where devices from Gamma corporation of the UK, Amesys of France, VASTech of South Africa and ZTE Corp of China monitored their every move online and on the phone.



In January 2011, the National Security Agency broke ground on a $1.5 billion facility in the Utah desert that is designed to store terabytes of domestic and foreign intelligence data forever and process it for years to come. Telecommunication companies are forthcoming when it comes to disclosing client information to the authorities - no matter the country. Headlines during August’s unrest in the UK exposed how Research in Motion (RIM), makers of the Blackberry, offered to help the government identify their clients. RIM has been in similar negotiations to share BlackBerry Messenger data with the governments of India, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.



Mass data processing and storage machines are not regulated in international trade, despite their obvious use being to store information on unsuspecting citizens in many cases.

So, as much as we tighten the restriction for warrants, the information is all still there. And agencies are allowed to dip into it. How do we realistically stop them from dipping too often?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
What about NSA and CIA and FBI? Are they "police"?


You know, I can see the NSA being exempt from this kind of regulation (not because it ought to be necessarily) because of their mandate for national defense. Even the CIA (ostensibly) is limited to contending with non-citizens or acts of outright treason which threaten our nation as a whole.

The FBI, on the other hand, is (or again maybe isn't, but should be) aligned with the interface of justice with the citizens so I think they should fall under this restriction.... not that they will... as we know.. in practice it only takes one technocrat willing to designate someone as a 'threat' to open the door to law enforcement thuggery.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


I can't say that you are incorrect.

In practice, anything we do on a telecommunication basis is there for the taking. I just wanted it stipulated that such a circumstance doesn't mean it's theirs for the taking.

If they should proceed with intruding into the privacy of any citizen - it must represent some risk.... otherwise they become the rulers rather than the servants. This isn't China... and it never will be.

The "party" (by which I mean the duopoly) is not going to be the new royalty ruling America... it will never be allowed to happen. Ever.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I agree. The issue just has to be seriously and honestly addressed by both government and citizens. There is no reason to think the private sector can't protect internet users from privacy infringement. First there has to be a demand for this, as it is currently being ignored.






top topics



 
6

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution