- Joined
- Apr 12, 2010
- Messages
- 15,532
- Reaction score
- 4,426
As of tonight nothing verified either way on "fact sites".
Another reason I compare Democrat policies,proposals and bills to socialism and Communism! As VladimirLenin once said: USEFUL IDIOTS....
A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has beenquietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than theypossess under current law.
CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, theinfluential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, hasdramatically reshaped his legislation in response to lawenforcement 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 theSecurities and Exchange Commission and the FederalCommunications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docsfiles, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI andHomeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access toInternet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtainedthe revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)
Revised bill highlights
Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designedto update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. Butafter law enforcement groups including theNational District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Associationorganizations objected to the legislation and asked him to"reconsider acting" on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworkedthe bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R.2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.
One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET thatJustice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy'soriginal bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement:James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain storede-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.
Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil LibertiesUnion, said requiring warrantless access to Americans' data"undercuts" the purpose of Leahy's original proposal. "Webelieve a warrant is the appropriate standard for any contents," he said.
An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussionswith interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on thelegislation.
Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director DavidPetraeus' e-mail was perused by the FBI, "even the Department of Justiceshould concede that there's a need for more judicial oversight," not less.
Another reason I compare Democrat policies,proposals and bills to socialism and Communism! As VladimirLenin once said: USEFUL IDIOTS....
A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has beenquietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than theypossess under current law.
CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, theinfluential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, hasdramatically reshaped his legislation in response to lawenforcement 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 theSecurities and Exchange Commission and the FederalCommunications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docsfiles, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI andHomeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access toInternet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtainedthe revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)
Revised bill highlights
- Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
- Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
- Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
- Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
- Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.
Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designedto update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. Butafter law enforcement groups including theNational District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Associationorganizations objected to the legislation and asked him to"reconsider acting" on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworkedthe bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R.2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.
One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET thatJustice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy'soriginal bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement:James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain storede-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.
Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil LibertiesUnion, said requiring warrantless access to Americans' data"undercuts" the purpose of Leahy's original proposal. "Webelieve a warrant is the appropriate standard for any contents," he said.
An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussionswith interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on thelegislation.
Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director DavidPetraeus' e-mail was perused by the FBI, "even the Department of Justiceshould concede that there's a need for more judicial oversight," not less.
