• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,055
Reaction score
33,371
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants | Politics and Law - CNET News

Daily Kos: No warrant required for private communications?

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.
Revised bill highlights
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.
It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."
Pat Leahy's committee has a bill up for vote soon that apparently was QUIETLY rewritten for govt snoopers to dig through your emails without ANYONE'S knowledge. How do you like your transparent government? I added the Daily Kos link so lefties wouldn't accuse me of a biased article. Apparently Leahy has a history mixed stands on privacy. I suspect that Leahy is a closet peeping-tom. Leahy is a huge asshole btw, which doesn't help either. It'll be interesting to learn how intrusive this law will be. Hopefully it'll get watered down to worthlessness.
 
it's a search. get a warrant.
 
Methinks they're going to have a hard time getting this past SCOTUS. Warrantless access to Facebook wall posts is one thing (since they're already the internet equivalent of shouting in a room full of people), but email is private, and we've got fourth amendment protections for such things.
 
On something like facebook, you have the right to an expectation of privacy to the extent that your account privacy settings are set. The premise that the govt duty is to find ways to circumvent the privacy of citizens is totally false. The jokers are looking for ways to circumvent the Constitution, which is a total mockery of govt ethics. Any elected official who purposefully seeks to circumvent the privacy of the citizens through legilation or other polcies without just cause needs to be impeached and frog-marched out of Washington or any state house. Any govt employee who purposefully seeks to invade any privacy without just cause should be fired.
 
Methinks they're going to have a hard time getting this past SCOTUS. Warrantless access to Facebook wall posts is one thing (since they're already the internet equivalent of shouting in a room full of people), but email is private, and we've got fourth amendment protections for such things.

It says cnet "has learned"...., but failed to reveal it's source. Rumor, rumor, rumor.
 
Last edited:
On something like facebook, you have the right to an expectation of privacy to the extent that your account privacy settings are set. The premise that the govt duty is to find ways to circumvent the privacy of citizens is totally false. The jokers are looking for ways to circumvent the Constitution, which is a total mockery of govt ethics. Any elected official who purposefully seeks to circumvent the privacy of the citizens through legilation or other polcies without just cause needs to be impeached and frog-marched out of Washington or any state house. Any govt employee who purposefully seeks to invade any privacy without just cause should be fired.

If you're talking about info limited to a small number of people, that's one thing. Wall posts, by their very nature, are at least semi-public. Anything posted to someone's wall could very easily be re-posted all over the damn place by anyone with access to it. Like I said in my first post, it's the equivalent of shouting something in a room full of people. That's not a very private act.
 
I'm confused...

I'm under the impression that Republicans are the ones people consider as wanting to abridge people's rights and that Democrats stand up for the privacy and rights of the people. Am I wrong about this? Leahy is a Democrat.
 
It says cnet "has learned"...., but failed to reveal it's source. Rumor, rumor, rumor.
I too suspect something is going on. I looked at other common news sites for anything H.R. 2471 (CNN; Fox News; etc; ) and came up short handed. :agree
 
If you're talking about info limited to a small number of people, that's one thing. Wall posts, by their very nature, are at least semi-public. Anything posted to someone's wall could very easily be re-posted all over the damn place by anyone with access to it. Like I said in my first post, it's the equivalent of shouting something in a room full of people. That's not a very private act.

I think my statement makes clear the parts that I consider private. If you have your wall wide-open, they can see it. If not, they can't; that simple. If they have to by-pass privacy settings, they are invading.
 
Democrats hate free speech, privacy and the Bill of Rights overall. Both gave Obama his wish of being able to have anyone anywhere including Americans assasinated or secretly imprisoned.

BUT that's what the people want and voted for again. The government reading your emails, and assasinating and secretly imprisoning Americans is "the will of the people."
 
I think my statement makes clear the parts that I consider private. If you have your wall wide-open, they can see it. If not, they can't; that simple. If they have to by-pass privacy settings, they are invading.

I'm saying it's a little more complicated than that. If you're putting something on your wall (whether or not it's set to be viewed by non-friends), you do so with full awareness that it a) will be seen by everyone on your friends list (which could mean upwards of 1,000 people for some individuals) and b) full awareness that it could be liked, commented on or reposted by any one (or more) of those people, whcih in turn will make your comment show up not just to your friends, but to god knows how many other people. Put simply, you really have very little reasonable expectation that a wall post is private, no matter what privacy settings you're using.
 
Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants | Politics and Law - CNET News

Daily Kos: No warrant required for private communications?


Pat Leahy's committee has a bill up for vote soon that apparently was QUIETLY rewritten for govt snoopers to dig through your emails without ANYONE'S knowledge. How do you like your transparent government? I added the Daily Kos link so lefties wouldn't accuse me of a biased article. Apparently Leahy has a history mixed stands on privacy. I suspect that Leahy is a closet peeping-tom. Leahy is a huge asshole btw, which doesn't help either. It'll be interesting to learn how intrusive this law will be. Hopefully it'll get watered down to worthlessness.

I don't think Republican Senators will be against this very hard.

The issue here isn't left vs. right. Rather, it's power vs. the people.

And Republicans want that power when they're in charge just as much as Democrats do.
 
Democrats hate free speech, privacy and the Bill of Rights overall. Both gave Obama his wish of being able to have anyone anywhere including Americans assasinated or secretly imprisoned.

BUT that's what the people want and voted for again. The government reading your emails, and assasinating and secretly imprisoning Americans is "the will of the people."

I don't remember Romney campaigning against those things.
 
Patriot Act requires a warrant.
Unless there is a threat in progress, such as a cell conversation or if there is reason to believe a warrant would take to long to stop said threat. It's an extension of probable cause to DHS.
 
I'm confused...

I'm under the impression that Republicans are the ones people consider as wanting to abridge people's rights and that Democrats stand up for the privacy and rights of the people. Am I wrong about this? Leahy is a Democrat.

I'm confused, I thought conservatives had no problem with this because they always say if you don't have anything to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. That's why they support the Patriot Act.
 
Bush couldn't be bothered with getting his secret warrants but I doubt it matters anyway. Apparently a lot of carriers just let the NSA access their stuff voluntarily and anything that bounces off a satellite is pretty fair game for the NSA anyway on the telephone side and these are generally the same folks who do the web side.
 
I'm confused, I thought conservatives had no problem with this because they always say if you don't have anything to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. That's why they support the Patriot Act.
There isn't a problem with looking into suspicion of certain crimes within reason, such as probable cause. If there is time for a warrant a warrant should be required, but if there is suspicion that there is a threat in progress then it can be followed up on. If there is a blanket snooping power granted to agencies "just because" it spits right in the face of due process rights and unreasonable search and seizure. Big surprise, it was one of the worst offenders in the senate Patrick Leahy who authored it.
 
On something like facebook, you have the right to an expectation of privacy to the extent that your account privacy settings are set. The premise that the govt duty is to find ways to circumvent the privacy of citizens is totally false. The jokers are looking for ways to circumvent the Constitution, which is a total mockery of govt ethics. Any elected official who purposefully seeks to circumvent the privacy of the citizens through legilation or other polcies without just cause needs to be impeached and frog-marched out of Washington or any state house. Any govt employee who purposefully seeks to invade any privacy without just cause should be fired.

I agree, except when it comes to Facebook. When you sign up, you're explicitly agreeing that anything you post there is literally owned by someone else. (Facebook) They can sell it or use it however they want. This would seem to be waiving privacy rights on that information.
 
I agree, except when it comes to Facebook. When you sign up, you're explicitly agreeing that anything you post there is literally owned by someone else. (Facebook) They can sell it or use it however they want. This would seem to be waiving privacy rights on that information.

Not to the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom