Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

BCC: FEDS

Feds Can Keep Reading Emails Without Warrants

Senate quietly drops measure that would have changed that practice

Next>

by Lisa Fine

Staff Writer t

Federal law enforcement officers can continue reading Americans' emails without a warrant.

The U.S. Senate recently dropped an amendment that would have, for the first time, required federal law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before monitoring email. Currently, the government does not need a warrant to read email and other data as long as it has been stored by a third party server for more than 180 days.

Just a month ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee had approved the email privacy amendment. It was attached to the Video Privacy Protection Act, which required video service providers like Netflix to let consumers choose to have their information posted on places like Facebook. Then late last week, the Senate opted to take up the House version, which did not contain the email privacy piece. The bill is now on its way to the White House for approval.

Chris Calabrese, the legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, told Wired he was unhappy that email privacy was not a priority.

"If Netflix is going to get an update to the privacy law, we think the American people should get an update to the privacy law," he said in the article.

Via Wired and Buzzfeed.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Should federal law enforcement officers have to obtain a warrant before reading emails?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    Just more of the same that W started with the patriot act, real ID act, and warrantless electronic surveillance. The elimination of the right to privacy and other constitutional rights is the most bi- partisan thing going on in washington, blaming it on liberals or conservatives plays right into there hands by causing which ever side is being criticized to rally around their guy, and keep the laws in place...
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  •
    aynrandsux
    !
    What do liberals have to do with the NDAA? That was GW's baby. Shouldn't you be addressing that question to the republicans?
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    @aynrandsux - Who signed NDAA into law? WHO SIGNED IT INTO LAW? I'll tell you who. It wasn't Bush. Keep blaming Bush and keep worshiping the Messiah. He isn't a messiah anyhow. He's a worthless two bit politician that has half the country fooled. Too bad Americans won't wake up until it is way too late.

  • View all 13 replies >

  • u
    CommonSense
    !
    This reminds me of the real reason why I vote Democrat, they are NOT Republicans.
    Republicans would've done it even worse.
    How do real progressives get their voice heard? I propose we start looking for uncontested districts and running truly progressive candidates, especially as Republicans against Democrats. If you are the only Republican running you'll get the nomination even if you're superprogressive. Maybe if the Democratic Party stays the corporatist shrill that it is progressives can take over the Republicans as the traditional conservative Republicans take a nose dive. Progressives used to lead the Republican Party. It can happen again. A lot of consistent Democrats would vote Republican once informed that the Republican in their district takes progressive positions on most issues and also is committed to ending unconstitutional warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phones and takes other progressive issues that the Democrats happily ignore because they can afford too with their current monopoly on "progressivism".
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    @Yank - Democrats are running the Senate and they are the ones that want to open up our emails for inspection. Yet, CommonSense wants to blame Republicans for this mess. We had a chance to clean up government back on Nov. 6th, unfortunately the Messiah got reelected.
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix The Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved the change to Video Privacy Protection Act that would have required warrants for reading our emails, consists of 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans ( http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members... ). According to the ACLU, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Video Privacy Protection Act without including improvements to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that were approved by the Senate.( http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/ho... )
  • Swampfox
    !
    You're common sense"?. Please. Common sense indicates that the sun goes around the earth but we all know that isn't true.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    This is actually the libertarian stratergy, and was ron pauls steatergy, as well as the tea party idea. You add the wrinkle of targeting uncontested districts. Not bad. I like it, in a few years the repubs will be badly organized as dems, with all from conservative to moderate to liberal to progressive all under the gop banner. Would be especially fun to watch in congress...furthest left could get plum committee assignments just by agreeing to downplay there repub status...

  • View all 6 replies >

  • FFX_VA
    !
    Reading personal correspondence must require a warrant, there's an expectation of privacy & it's none of the government's business unless a judge approves due to criminal probable cause.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    Well I agree that it should, but since W has been in office that has not been the practice. In fairness to W, and I hate being fair to W, I believe the practice was being used, although far less widely, begore he was in office...
  • FFX_VA
    !
    @PoliticalSpice It's ok to be fair, all these guys have pros & cons. O adopted many of W's policies & practices, and in many cases expanded them. They just hide it behind spin to look "different".

    Either way, O's expansions to W's policies = OW to our privacy.:)
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    @FFX_VA the issue here really is, the executive always wants more power, and as soon as a candidate gets in policies that were not to their liking as a candidate all of a sudden they see the benefit to them as the receipuent of that power. J Edgar was a master at making sure that whoever got in got the benefit of his unlawful conduct, once offered it they wanted more, dem or repub, it always worked to keep him in power...shat he was doing was childs play compared to what they have today!
  • truthsayer
    !
    @PoliticalSpice Any expectation of privacy we have ever had has been a illusion. Governments main priority is to maintain power. People have forgotten the McCarthy hearings. The attempted massacre by the government of 3,000 Appalachian men, woman and children while they sleep. I could go on and on. The government has drawn up plans in the past to commit terroristic acts on American citizens with the sole purpose of blaming a foreign power as a reason to go to war (Operation Northwoods). There are no limits government will go to legal or illegal to when it feels its right to command and dictate is threatened. Threats of violence,blackmail,murder or any other means coercion that can be used has and will be used to maintain its control. Our government is in a constant state of paranoia and its actions since our conception proves it. The American people are not to trusted.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    @truthsayer pk i have not forgotten mccarthy, cointelpro, operation chaos, operation resistance, nuclear testing, etc. ect. But can you fill me in on this thing about killing 3000 in appalatia and operation northwoods?

  • View all 6 replies >

  • Thegrif
    !
    I said yes but I wonder? Is there resonable expectation that e-mails sent out over the world wide web are in fact private, I know we all send stuff in emails and think its gonna get only to the person intended, but sometimes it just get lost out there in cyberspace. Plus we all know about hackers.
    So is it resonable to think we have privacy. I mean our message isn't exactly folded, placed in a envelope and sealed with spit.
    I would love to keep big brother out of our business, but...
  • jessejaymes
    !
    The expectation for myself is that those with something worthwhile to a hacker might expect to be hacked. You and I are of no real interest to a hacker who has political or financial motivation. the same cannot be said for the Govt who has shown they will back big business in supporting a quarter of a million dollar fine for a woman whose kid downloaded 11 songs. We should have an expectation of privacy with our emails from our govt.
  • Thegrif
    !
    @jessejaymes true I get what your saying, and I agree with every word of your post. But I was more or less talking about the gov'ts legal arguement, are, or do you think, they are saying because its not exactly secure out there in cybespace then anyone can grab the info?
  • jessejaymes
    !
    @Thegrif That may be true grif but it's still not an excuse for the feds to be the ones doing it. that's the ole "everyone does it" excuse. Did that work with your mother? LOL
  • Thegrif
    !
    @jessejaymes lmao... Nope
    I'm with ya on this one brother, but just trying to see what their case might exactly be.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    @Thegrif I'm seriously concerned about this. Every power given is exceeded by those to whom it is given. That's human nature. A woman cop is a hottie so dozens of cops accessed her I.D. on computers to gawk at her. That's a trivial example of the kind of govt we have today. Everyone wants to stop deficit spending. I know where we can stop it immediately. Can all the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people working for "spook agencies" such as the NSA, CIA, FBI and a dozen more, that all they do is randomly read emails, listen in on phone calls, watch from drones over the country, monitor cameras everywhere. They are not after a specific person, they are fishing. Looking for :"crime" to pad their stats for their existence. There is not a person drawing breath today that hasn't broken SOME law. There are a thousand laws a year passed around this country and yet, "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Actually it is the best excuse since nobody, and I mean NOBODY in this country knows every law. I don't want to be that person who words something in my old out of date language and some moron getting paid 90K a year to fish takes it the wrong way because he just happened to be perusing my email or one someone sent me that I replied to. I'm not an intentional criminal. I'm sure the case could be made by some misfortune wording that I am. And you are. And Everyone is. It's USSR tactics man. NO!!

  • View all 12 replies >

  • Bobolinsky
    !
    I was going to say we need a Privacy Amendment but then I reread the Fourth Amendment

    "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."

    Wouldn't email fit in with "papers"?

    I also noticed that there is no mention in the 4th Amendment about our protection against illegal search and seizure expiring after 180 days.
  • Bobolinsky
    !
    I thought this bit from the Wired article was interesting.

    "Congress adopted the Video Privacy Protection Act in 1988 after failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental history was published by the Washington City Paper during confirmation hearings."
  • Bobolinsky
    !
    @woodtick57-- The Left would really hate that. That would be forsaking 4th Amendment protection of people in favor of 4th Amendment protection of the "corporation."

    I honestly can;t see how anyone would come to that conclusion without ignoring the intent of the 4th Amendment which was to keep prying government eyes in check.
  • o
    woodtick57
    !
    @Bobolinsky Well, you cell phone records ar ehte property of your provider, that has been decided. Why would the emails you put over the same service be any different?
  • Bobolinsky
    !
    @woodtick57-- The equivalent for email would be a list of who you sent and received email to and the date. I can see a case for the subject line being accessible in the same way as phone records but the actual content of phone calls needs a wiretap warrant.

  • View all 10 replies >

  • DogLady_1
    !
    FYI: NDAA Roll Call
    Senate 93-7 Sponsor: Carl Levin (MI)(3 reps, 3 dems and 1 ind opposed)
    House 283-136 Sponsor: Buck McKeon (CA)(43 reps, 93 dems opposed)
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    Following the logic of the liberal leadership (apologies for the oxymoron) the Bill of Right only applies to technology existing in 1787.

    Since Jefferson, Madison and Adams didn't use e-mail they couldn't have intended to protect it anymore than assault rifles.

    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.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
    THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO..." The same right and the same people. You can have it one way or another....
  • dlw
    !
    Why are Americans so willing to give up their rights? Slowly but surely we are loosing our rights by standing by idly and letting our government take them away by so few of us getting involved until its too late.... I feel sorry for future generations that might very well live under a police state. In a way, I'm glad I won't be alive to experience it.
  • armenia4ever
    !
    Bills like the NDAA, Patriot act, ect. are all examples of political hypocrisy. Its okay when its "your" guy in office, but if its the other guy, its a violation of civil liberties. Since when did the concept of civil liberty become tied to politics and party line policy? Either its a violation of civil liberty or it is not regardless of who is pushing it.