The sorry affair of David Petraeus and a cast of thousands of emails, Tampa-area socialites, and jokes about the book title “All In” really showed the power of the FBI as part of the architecture of the government surveillance state, able to snoop on almost every private email communication of every citizen, often without a warrant. The legislation undergirding this policy hasn’t been updated since 1986, when email was downloaded from a server onto a physical computer. With most email now existing in the cloud, Congress has not updated the law to account for this, and as a result virtually all email can be investigated, often without a warrant. (In fact, after 180 days, all email can be searched, regardless of the format, though a warrant is required for data stored on a local hard drive.)
Congress is apparently responding to the Petraeus affair and the newfound concern about privacy in the digital age by writing an update to the law that dispenses with all pretense and just authorizes more warrantless email surveillance:
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.)
Basically, any law enforcement or intelligence-gathering agency would be allowed to access emails without a warrant or court review in the event of an “emergency,” which of course the agencies themselves define. Email customers whose communications have been accessed would not be notified for at least 10 and up to 360 business days.
The bill is HR 2471, an update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The update originally would have demanded that federal agencies obtain a warrant backed by probable cause. So this represents a complete reversal, allowing for MORE warrantless snooping than the law currently allows.
The Justice Department opposed the original bill (the one that would have required a warrant) and hasn’t yet objected to this new one.
Applying Fourth Amendment rights to a digital society has increasingly led to the degradation of more privacy protections. This seems headed in the same direction.




15 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I think you misunderstand, David.
Right now government agents can flash their badge and walk into a room at your ISP, where a terminal is set up that gives them superuser access to all their customers’ accounts. No warrants. No emergency. No notification. No nothing.
The Leahy bill would actually marginally improve the situation.
Well then, thank goodness for strong encryption.
…
You mean the “new and improved” Leahy bill, bmull?
If improvements keep up at this rate, then we aren’t going to have anything to worry about.
And, I would like to repeat zapkitty’s eloquent response to pointus.
.
.
.
.
DW
This is Fascism…..
“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.)”
So who is being protected? Not America….
This certainly is not about “security” for “the people”, JamesJoyce, it is about raw, brutal, and limitless power.
DW
Leahy is said to be one of the “Good” Democrats … right?
I’d still like to see “the list” of those “Good Democrats” …
Just so I know who others think are the “good” ones, it’s hard to tell, sometimes …
Ah, well …
DW
Leahy did a lot of huffing and puffing and he wrote strongly worded letters relating to the erosion of American Civil Liberties vis a vis FISA and other issues.
Of course, Leahy caved every time in favor of the Security/Surveillance/Police State.
Now Leahy doesn’t bother to pretend that he’s anything other than a prostitute for the Military Industrial Complex.
You are a criminal till proven innocent at your expense.
Ted Rall; doing it to David Petraeus and the CIA before they’re old enough to know better. :o)
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/ted-rall-slideshow/
Good stuff there Tan, thanks. Loved the one about Ph.D’s. ;-)
BMAZ Has Some Slants On This Leahy Bill And Such.
From your friends at DKOS…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/20/1163458/-CNET-Corporate-Lobbyists-Mislead-on-Leahy-Privacy-Bill
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.
It all sounds scary, but they have this all wrong.
Leahy’s re-written bill, which you can read here, prohibits law enforcement agencies from accessing GPS information without a warrant, and generally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to compel service providers to disclose information unless the information is relevant to an ongoing telemarketer fraud investigation (a relatively narrow loophole). this is great because currently, these agencies obtain this information based on an adminstrative subpoena that is not subject to judicial review.
The controversial portion of the rewritten bill is the portion which grants all Federal agencies (defined here) the power to issue an administrative subpoena for electronic information, GPS information and even remote computing service.
CNET quotes an array of folks raising privacy red flags, as well as a corporate lobbyist who seems terrified:
Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:
❝ There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations. ❞
What we have here, is a situation where legitimate concerns over individual privacy are being conflated with the legitimate needs of regulatory agencies to be able to investigate regulated entities. The CNET article seems to adopt the frame of the corporate lobbyist and confused privacy groups to suggest that this bill somehow threatens the privacy rights of everyone, when in effect, the main losers of this bill would be regulated corporations.
From the Burlington Free Press this morning:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20121120/NEWS03/311200012/Warrantless-snooping-controversy-snares-Leahy?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|
Leahy claims he never supported warrantless surveillance, an afternoon update from CNET claims he caved due to online pressure.
I guess the answer is to see the actual bill.
Lots of brains were addled by Bush/Cheney and 9/11. Leahy’s seems to be one of them.