Warrantless E-mail Access for Feds Shelved
Bill amended to remove privacy concerns for American internet users.
Patrick Leahy's bill that intended to deliver warrantless email access for American internet users to the U.S. government has been shelved.
The Senator said in a press release that his latest amendments to the bill will adhere strictly to protecting privacy as opposed to the exact opposite.
The bill no longer includes mention of allowing more than 22 agencies (including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission) to access Americans' private e-mails, as well as their Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant.
Leahy, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had responded to the bill amended last week by abandoning his proposal and stressing he remains committed to protecting privacy rights for American citizens.
"I hope that all members of the Committee will join me in supporting the effort in Congress to update this law to protect Americans' privacy," he said.
Privacy groups and industry representatives are now set to vote on the revised proposal, which is due for a committee vote on Thursday. The amended bill "protects the central privacy provision that we put forward," says Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU.

*cough* Term limits *cough*
*cough* Term limits *cough*
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/23/more_secrets_on_growing_state_surveillance
Watch that link!!!!!
https://www.eff.org/
There are others, too. (Thanks for the link thecolorblue)
My server is in my house so the only way the feds could read my emails is if they raided my house and took my server... which is also encrypted. I also use my server for DNS and use OpenDNS.
If you checked the previous article you would have noticed that his party affiliation is stated. If you understood how the US government worked you would know that the head of any committee is usually a member of that house's controlling party. So, committee heads in the Senate will be democrats while those in the house will be republicans in the current Congress. If I had to guess it was an oversight on the part of Tom's, but his party affiliation was stated in the original article and if you're, as I have assumed, an American citizen you should be able to determine his party affiliation based on the facts presented in the article. The omission of his state is present in both articles but that fact doesn't carry the same weight as his party affiliation. None the less, this isn't party bias as you imply; it's the author assuming you're following the story.