• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Democrats Aim to Provide Warrantly e-Search

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants - Yahoo! News

Leaky Leahy, the man you can't trust with confidential information, wants your emails and he doesn't
want to have to ask a pesky judge for the right to them either.

I'm guessing those offended will be depending on the Republican house to stop this crap? I wonder if
they will or if they'll capitulate like they have on the Patriot Act.
 
Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants - Yahoo! News

Leaky Leahy, the man you can't trust with confidential information, wants your emails and he doesn't
want to have to ask a pesky judge for the right to them either.

I'm guessing those offended will be depending on the Republican house to stop this crap? I wonder if
they will or if they'll capitulate like they have on the Patriot Act.

HEY, but at least we got rid of that sneaker BUSH, eh?
 
I'm guessing those offended will be depending on the Republican house to stop this crap? I wonder if
they will or if they'll capitulate like they have on the Patriot Act.

All signs point to "capitulate".

Supposedly the plan is still in flux and under discussion but it's looking very promising for Big Brother and not good for the rest of us.

At least the Dems, generally, promise to be the benevolent Big Gov who will oversee everything. The Repubs promise to stand by personal freedom and small Gov and all that such. Who's selling out the most if they go along with this?
 
He will retry, and call his new bill something catchy, like the Patriot Act - then it will be OK.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. I wonder what bill they used to allow them to check out the anonymous emails between Paula Broadwell and Jill Kelly or between Paula Broadwell and Petraous or between Kelly and General Allen or between Kelly and the Shirtless Wonder from the FBI
 
Here is Patrick Leahy's response on his website:

from the Patrick Leahy website said:
: November 20, 2012

The rumors about warrant exceptions being added to ECPA are incorrect. Many have come forward with ideas for discussion before markup resumes on my bill to strengthen privacy protections under ECPA. As normally happens in the legislative process, these ideas are being circulated for discussion. One of them, having to do with a warrant exception, is one that I have not supported and do not support. The whole thrust of my bill is to remedy the erosion of the public’s privacy rights under the rapid advances of technology that we have seen since ECPA was first enacted thirty years ago. In particular, my proposal would require search warrants for government access to email stored by third-party service providers – something that of course was not contemplated three decades ago.

[The following is the text of the amendment Senator Leahy introduced in September 2012.]

LEAHY SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 2471 SECTION BY SECTION

The substitute bill clarifies that video tape service providers may obtain customer consent to share video viewing information on an ongoing basis and that such consent may be given via the Internet. The substitute also updates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to enhance consumer privacy and meet the new privacy challenges posed by cloud computing and other new technologies.

TITLE I - VIDEO PRIVACY PROTECTION

SECTION 101 -- SHORT TITLE.

This section designates the title as the Video Privacy Protection Act Amendments of 2012.

SECTION 102 - VIDEO PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT.

Section 102 amends title 18, United States Codes, section 2710(b)(2) to clarify that video tape service providers may obtain a customer’s informed, written consent to share video viewing information on an ongoing basis and that such consent may be obtained via the Internet. The provision includes a requirement that video service providers provide their customers, in a clear and conspicuous manner, with the opportunity to withdraw the consent given to share video viewing information at any time.

TITLE II - ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY

SECTION 201 – SHORT TITLE.

This section designates the title as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2012.

SECTION 202 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

Section 202 amends title 18, United States Code, section 2702 (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or “ECPA”) to prohibit an electronic communication or remote computing service provider from voluntarily disclosing the contents of its customer’s email or other electronic communications to the Government. There are limited exceptions to this prohibition under current law, including, customer consent and disclosure to law enforcement to address criminal activity.

SECTION 203 – ELIMINATION OF 180 DAY RULE; SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT FOR CONTENT; REQUIRED DISCLOSURE OF CUSTOMER RECORDS.

Section 203 amends ECPA so that the disclosure of the content of email and other electronic communications by an electronic communication or remote computing service provider to the Government is subject to one clear legal standard -- a search warrant issued based on a showing of probable cause. The provision eliminates the confusing and outdated “180-day” rule that calls for different legal standards for the Government to obtain email content, depending upon the email’s age. The provision also requires that the Government notify the individual whose account was disclosed, and provide that individual with a copy of the search warrant and other details about the information obtained, within three days.

Section 203 also reaffirms current law to clarify that the Government may use an administrative or grand jury subpoena in order to obtain certain kinds of electronic communication records from a service provider, including customer name, address, session time records, length of service information, subscriber number and temporarily assigned network address, and means and source of payment information.

SECTION 204 – DELAYED NOTICE.

Section 204 amends section 2705 of ECPA to provide that the Government may seek a court order to delay notifying an individual of that fact that the Government has accessed the contents of the individual’s electronic communications for up to 90 days. This delay period may be extended for a period of up to an additional 90 days at a time by a court. Section 204 also establishes a 90-day time limit on the period that the Government could prevent a service provider from informing its customer about the disclosure of electronic communications information to the Government. This time period may be extended by a court for up to an additional 90 days at a time.

# # # # #

Press Contact
David Carle: 202-224-3693
 
The NSA was conducting all manner of warrantless searches and seizures under Dubya's reign. "Roving Wire Taps" and such granted by the Unpatriot Act. Then FISA II which granted immunity to the various telecoms who had done the government's dirty work.

The government ALREADY spies on citizens without warrants. What's new?
 
The NSA was conducting all manner of warrantless searches and seizures under Dubya's reign. "Roving Wire Taps" and such granted by the Unpatriot Act. Then FISA II which granted immunity to the various telecoms who had done the government's dirty work.

The government ALREADY spies on citizens without warrants. What's new?

what's new?

the president's a democrat so the right wakes up to unconstitutional searches, and the left becomes a lot less vocal about them.

it wasn't that long ago that i about got run off of a right wing site on a rail because i had the nerve to criticize the "patriot" act. i was told :

a. if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

b. it will only be used to catch "terrorist" (for some reason, extreme wingers don't understand that "terrorists" is the plural of "terrorist.")

c. why do you want to help the terrorist?

d. you're (actually, they generally used "your" incorrectly, also) a loserdopian who just wants to smoke dope and help the terrorist.

i often enjoyed pointing out that other political parties might win the white house someday, but most of them couldn't see five feet into the pea soup fog of hyperpartisanship.

i maintain the same position about this kind of legislation that i argued back then : if it's a search, get a warrant.
 
what's new?

the president's a democrat so the right wakes up to unconstitutional searches, and the left becomes a lot less vocal about them.

it wasn't that long ago that i about got run off of a right wing site on a rail because i had the nerve to criticize the "patriot" act. i was told :

a. if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

b. it will only be used to catch "terrorist" (for some reason, extreme wingers don't understand that "terrorists" is the plural of "terrorist.")

c. why do you want to help the terrorist?

d. you're (actually, they generally used "your" incorrectly, also) a loserdopian who just wants to smoke dope and help the terrorist.

i often enjoyed pointing out that other political parties might win the white house someday, but most of them couldn't see five feet into the pea soup fog of hyperpartisanship.

i maintain the same position about this kind of legislation that i argued back then : if it's a search, get a warrant.

Good post.

Sadly, modern US citizens have been thoroughly conditioned to accept as normal all manner of unlawful government actions. For that, we have the War On Drugs to thank, and the more recent Global War On Terror. Too many folks believe anything the government says, despite its well established track record of usurpation and deception.
 
Good post.

Sadly, modern US citizens have been thoroughly conditioned to accept as normal all manner of unlawful government actions. For that, we have the War On Drugs to thank, and the more recent Global War On Terror. Too many folks believe anything the government says, despite its well established track record of usurpation and deception.

for the most part, i agree. however, it's possible to take skepticism too far, as is demonstrated regularly in the realm of outlandish conspiracy theories.

it's not much of a stretch, though, to speculate that broad powers to search without warrant might be abused.
 
for the most part, i agree. however, it's possible to take skepticism too far, as is demonstrated regularly in the realm of outlandish conspiracy theories.

it's not much of a stretch, though, to speculate that broad powers to search without warrant might be abused.

Broad powers to search without a warrant do not exist in the US Constitution. In fact, they are forbidden. The government granting itself powers to search or to kill without due process are usurpations, nothing more and nothing less.

Outlandish conspiracies?

They flourish when the government refuses to conduct investigations, and evidence contradicts the official story. A normal thing, and thus not really outlandish.

We know there was indeed a conspiracy. The only question for the disinterested analytical mind is : just who were the conspirators?

If the government would attack the USC by way of the Unpatriot Act or the NDAA or MCA or a variety of others including illegal searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment, what else might that government (hijacked) do?
 
If a person or group will deceive once, will it do the same twice?


is the US government one hundred percent transparent and truthful with its citizens? no.

doe that mean that the US government is guilty of every lump of conspiracy nutbaggery that is currently floating around the blogosphere? no.
 
is the US government one hundred percent transparent and truthful with its citizens? no.

doe that mean that the US government is guilty of every lump of conspiracy nutbaggery that is currently floating around the blogosphere? no.

I did not suggest what your last sentence says.

What I said is that a person or group with a well established reputation for deception is likely to deceive as it pleases.

And I will add to that, if one places great faith in the pronouncements of known liars, one acts in an irrational manner. Such behavior is not part of critical thinking skills.
 
I did not suggest what your last sentence says.

What I said is that a person or group with a well established reputation for deception is likely to deceive as it pleases.

And I will add to that, if one places great faith in the pronouncements of known liars, one acts in an irrational manner. Such behavior is not part of critical thinking skills.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
 
what's new?

the president's a democrat so the right wakes up to unconstitutional searches, and the left becomes a lot less vocal about them.

it wasn't that long ago that i about got run off of a right wing site on a rail because i had the nerve to criticize the "patriot" act. i was told :

a. if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

b. it will only be used to catch "terrorist" (for some reason, extreme wingers don't understand that "terrorists" is the plural of "terrorist.")

c. why do you want to help the terrorist?

d. you're (actually, they generally used "your" incorrectly, also) a loserdopian who just wants to smoke dope and help the terrorist.

i often enjoyed pointing out that other political parties might win the white house someday, but most of them couldn't see five feet into the pea soup fog of hyperpartisanship.

i maintain the same position about this kind of legislation that i argued back then : if it's a search, get a warrant.


What your describing is political footbal...whoever is holding the ball gets tackled...when the ball switchs sides the tackled now tackle....good post btw...I was one of those in 2008 that would have told you that if you dont do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about :)
 
Back
Top Bottom