Last week, a U.S. Senate panel approved a privacy bill that will help keep law enforcement from accessing data stored in the cloud without a warrant.
It was a victory not only for the American web surfer who uses online email and sends personal, private messages through Facebook, but for a coalition of technology firms that have urged Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to more modern 2012. The coalition, which includes technology firms Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter, have argued that consumers should have the same rights online as they do offline.
In order words, as CNET cleverly describes, law enforcement should not be able to dig through emails and private Facebook messages much like they can't search through documents stored in an office cabinet without acquiring a warrant first. To get that warrant, federal, state, and local police must establish probable cause just like they do with offline cases.
"We have to update our digital privacy laws if we want to keep up with rapid changes in technology," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who's the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Naturally law enforcement groups, backed by Sen. Chuck Grassley, object to the idea of locking out law enforcement. Grassley tried to meet the Senate on middle ground by suggesting an amendment that would suspend privacy protections in "emergency" circumstances. That amendment was rejected, but still he persisted to argue, saying that Senators are "abdicating our duty if we do not examine the concerns raised by federal and state law enforcement."
"[Law officials have raised] important questions and ones we should be prepared to address [in an open process]", he said, "[not through] concerns that were raised in the media in the draft of the legislation that was leaked last week."
As stated, the public lashed out after a draft of the legislation proposed by Leahy was leaked, revealing that more than 22 federal agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission – would have warrantless access to e-mail and other private communications. Leahy abandoned his draft and did not offer it up for a vote, CNET said. Instead, it has been applied to a proposed amendment to the Video Privacy Protection Act which will head to the Senate for voting next year.
One of the biggest fears about the new legislation passed is that it will slow down criminal investigations. "The proposed notice provisions would create unnecessary risks to investigations and undue burdens on law enforcement agencies given the potentially large number of cases in which delays would need to be sought and renewed," stated a letter signed by the National Sheriffs' Association, the National District Attorneys' Association, and other law enforcement groups.
CNET reports that the legislation approved by the Judiciary Committee isn't a complete win for the coalition. Service providers must now inform law enforcement in advance if they plan to tell customers that they are targets of a warrant order, order or subpoena. Police can also delay notifications of being served for two 180-day periods – the original bill only allowed for two 90-day periods.
Even if that is true, at least we know there are people in the Government who respect and are willing to enforce the privacy of others.
The alternative could be much worse.
I also don't like that police can serve a warrant to your ISP and make the ISP delay for almost a year before they can notify you. What kind of BS is that? If your information is being looked at under a warrant, you should be able to know that immediately!
I think the educated lawman understands "checks and balances" and why we need them. I think he can easily enough see that not all his fellow officers are honest, pure of heart, or completely unbiased, and that Americans might not have a common religion but they do hold some things sacred, and protecting the individual from wrongful judgment is one of those things.
These laws don't prevent law enforcement from accessing any documents - they prevent them from doing it in a closed system without an overseer. We need overseers, we need judges to approve putting aside a citizen's rights, to do it knowing there is strong reason to believe such an extreme action is justified.
Because of this, there are laws that defend me from them, therefore defeating the entire purpouse of "LAW ENFORCEMENT".
But as we all know, those rich and in positions of power tend to have an esier time than regular folk when dealing with authorities, so its probably just a way to limit others while not limiting themselves.
In this case, i like the idea, however we shall see how long it actually lasts.
its safe to assume that you are on your own to raise your own shield of privacy, no one will provide one for you. undermining is a 2 way street, you have your own barricade and those that try to undermine you have their own. assume the worst, prepare for the worst