CNET

ECPA Amendments and Privacy in a Post Petraeus World

One of the issues making the rounds like wildfire today was a report from Declan McCullagh at CNET regarding certain proposed amendments to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). The article is entitled “Senate Bill Rewrite Lets Feds Read Your E-mail Without Warrants” and relates:

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. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)

This sounds like the predictably craven treachery that regularly comes out of Senate, indeed Congressional, legislation on privacy issues. And exactly what many had hoped would cease coming out of Washington after the public scrutiny brought on by the Petraeus/Broadwell/Kelley scandal. And, should these amendments make it into law, they may yet prove detrimental.

But there are a couple of problems here. First, as Julian Sanchez noted, those abilities by the government already substantially exist.

Lots of people RTing CNET’s story today seem outraged Congress might allow access to e-mail w/o warrant—but that’s the law ALREADY!

Well, yes. Secondly, and even more problematic, is Pat Leahy vehemently denies the CNET report. In fact, Senator Leahy does not support broad exemptions for warrantless searches for email content. A source within the Judiciary Committee described the situation as follows: Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @onekade Hey! Orange jumpsuits are so much more stylish than burqas.
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Schiff's talk of "coupling" EO w/CISA reinforces concerns abt what kind of crazy claims they're prepping for FISC. https://t.co/aa4NaFt4bX
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @draperha I was sure you had beaten @LibyaLiberty w/your late deployment of the Whore Legs, too. It must have backfired.
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PhilPerspective @JonathanCohn Not so sure Sinema would take on McCain in 2016
20mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @KING5Seattle: An April's Fools Day joke about turning the @space_needle into housing for @Amazon workers. via @dougdKING5 http://t.co/X
21mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @EdgeofSports: My latest piece @thenation "Why Duke's Coach K is a Profile in Cowardice" #NCAATournament #RFRA http://t.co/NyZd0EWn2J
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Critical infrastructure also includes casinos. Sheldon Adelson is our critical infrastructure, NBD. http://t.co/bABbhQ0oBO
29mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel As you consider new EO, remember def of "critical infrastructure" not only includes Sony Pics, but campgrounds http://t.co/bABbhQ0oBO
31mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @csoghoian How about the Guardian for publishing details of contractors' trade secrets on their involvement in NSA hacks. Less crazy idea.
32mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz That one day a year where @normative is tweeting out Stewart Baker....
43mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel The word "malicious" is funny in an EO. "Sure I stole your trade secrets. But I didn't mean to hurt you."
54mreplyretweetfavorite
April 2015
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930