Patrick Leahy Rewriting Bill That Allows Government Intrusion Into Your Internet Use

[mudwhistle]

Senate Democrat wants to be able to read your emails without a search warrant

A 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.

Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Revised bill highlights

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.

✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.

✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

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.

CNET obtained a draft of the proposed amendments from one of the people involved in the negotiations with Leahy; it's embedded at the end of this post. The document describes the changes as "Amendments intended to be proposed by Mr. Leahy."

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."

A politician that thinks he or she can get away with murder is a dangerous possibility.

Links

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants | Politics and Law - CNET News

Proposed amendments to EPCA

 

[mudwhistle]

Folks, Demcrats feel they have a mandate to do this. You need to be aware of how close we are to being a police state.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Holder and Obama are already an accessory to murder, so yeah, this is the next natural step.

The same people who claim to the be ideological descendants of our Founding Fathers now have stationed the troops at the post office to read all our mail

 

[mudwhistle]

Holder and Obama are already an accessory to murder, so yeah, this is the next natural step.

The same people who claim to the be ideological descendants of our Founding Fathers now have stationed the troops at the post office to read all our mail

That may be true but the more extreme these Democrats become the less their base believes about them when told.

They have been conditioned to ignore the truth when it is presented to them.

 

[TNHarley]

What do ya know? He is a f'n democrat! Figures..

 

[Harry Dresden]

Holder and Obama are already an accessory to murder, so yeah, this is the next natural step.

The same people who claim to the be ideological descendants of our Founding Fathers now have stationed the troops at the post office to read all our mail

Frank i work at the PO.....there are no troops there......you are being lied too.....

 

[mudwhistle]

Holder and Obama are already an accessory to murder, so yeah, this is the next natural step.

The same people who claim to the be ideological descendants of our Founding Fathers now have stationed the troops at the post office to read all our mail

Frank i work at the PO.....there are no troops there......you are being lied too.....

You wear a uniform don't you?

I don't think he meant it literally.

'Leaky Leahy' wants to make it easier to spy on us.

Possible reasons could be:

1. Finding out your political affiliations before elections
2. Using it as blackmail against political opponents
3. Monitoring your surfing habits
4. Using the information to spot Christians, gun owners, tax-cheats
5. Gaining access to bank accounts

Right now the government can do all of this but Leahy is the frontrunner trying to make it easier to control us through the web without having to go through the messy process of using the legal system.

 

[PratchettFan]

Folks, Demcrats feel they have a mandate to do this. You need to be aware of how close we are to being a police state.

Just out of curiosity, did you actually bother to read the article? According to it, what Leahy did was knuckle under to those bastions of far left thinking, the National District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriff's Association, over the objections of that ultra conservative group - the ACLU.

I'd have to read the entire bill, not just excerpts, to form an opinion. But I did notice the one thing the article did not include was the reaction of the republican members of the committee. What do you think that might be?

 

[mudwhistle]

Folks, Demcrats feel they have a mandate to do this. You need to be aware of how close we are to being a police state.

Just out of curiosity, did you actually bother to read the article? According to it, what Leahy did was knuckle under to those bastions of far left thinking, the National District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriff's Association, over the objections of that ultra conservative group - the ACLU.

I'd have to read the entire bill, not just excerpts, to form an opinion. But I did notice the one thing the article did not include was the reaction of the republican members of the committee. What do you think that might be?

I read the article.

The problem I see isn't that there were objections to what he is doing but that he's even trying to do this in the first place. The fact that he would even attempt it is scary.

Now you were saying?

 

[PratchettFan]

Folks, Demcrats feel they have a mandate to do this. You need to be aware of how close we are to being a police state.

Just out of curiosity, did you actually bother to read the article? According to it, what Leahy did was knuckle under to those bastions of far left thinking, the National District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriff's Association, over the objections of that ultra conservative group - the ACLU.

I'd have to read the entire bill, not just excerpts, to form an opinion. But I did notice the one thing the article did not include was the reaction of the republican members of the committee. What do you think that might be?

I read the article.

The problem I see isn't that there were objections to what he is doing but that he's even trying to do this in the first place. The fact that he would even attempt it is scary.

Now you were saying?

What I was saying was that claiming that this is some kind of democrat thing is clearly ludicrous for anyone looking at it from a rational perspective. You might well have a point that congress is looking at something objectionable. But when you attempt to make this out as some sort of partisan effort, you are clearly way off base. And that is what you are doing. It is not the left that is pushing for this amendment. In this case, you happen to be putting forth a liberal position - you commie, socialist, pinko, liberal elitist.

 

[mudwhistle]

Just out of curiosity, did you actually bother to read the article? According to it, what Leahy did was knuckle under to those bastions of far left thinking, the National District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriff's Association, over the objections of that ultra conservative group - the ACLU.

I'd have to read the entire bill, not just excerpts, to form an opinion. But I did notice the one thing the article did not include was the reaction of the republican members of the committee. What do you think that might be?

I read the article.

The problem I see isn't that there were objections to what he is doing but that he's even trying to do this in the first place. The fact that he would even attempt it is scary.

Now you were saying?

What I was saying was that claiming that this is some kind of democrat thing is clearly ludicrous for anyone looking at it from a rational perspective. You might well have a point that congress is looking at something objectionable. But when you attempt to make this out as some sort of partisan effort, you are clearly way off base. And that is what you are doing. It is not the left that is pushing for this amendment. In this case, you happen to be putting forth a liberal position - you commie, socialist, pinko, liberal elitist.

Leahy is a Democrat.

So what's your point?

I wouldn't accept this from anyone. So stop with partisanship.

The problem I see is that right now Democrats have become a threat because they have the power. The GOP is fairly impotent. All they can do is whine and try to prevent the inevidable. The rules are on the left's side right now. Abusive government is still abusive regardless it's source.

What we've witnessed this year should scare the hell out of everyone. Whatever the powers that be want they get. And right now they are Democrats.

 

[PratchettFan]

I read the article.

The problem I see isn't that there were objections to what he is doing but that he's even trying to do this in the first place. The fact that he would even attempt it is scary.

Now you were saying?

What I was saying was that claiming that this is some kind of democrat thing is clearly ludicrous for anyone looking at it from a rational perspective. You might well have a point that congress is looking at something objectionable. But when you attempt to make this out as some sort of partisan effort, you are clearly way off base. And that is what you are doing. It is not the left that is pushing for this amendment. In this case, you happen to be putting forth a liberal position - you commie, socialist, pinko, liberal elitist.

Leahy is a Democrat.

So what's your point?

I wouldn't accept this from anyone. So stop with partisanship.

The problem I see is that right now Democrats have become a threat because they have the power. The GOP is fairly impotent. All they can do is whine and try to prevent the inevidable. The rules are on the left's side right now. Abusive government is still abusive regardless it's source.

What we've witnessed this year should scare the hell out of everyone. Whatever the powers that be want they get. And right now they are Democrats.

Stop with the partisanship? "Folks, the Democrats feel they have a mandate to do this." That was you, not me. You say it doesn't matter, yet it is you are who quick to point out which party Leahy was in and utterly ignore the fact that it is too essentially conservative organizations which wanted this put in.

What exactly did we witness this year which scares you? I mean, aside from a proposed amendment which has not yet even seen a committee meeting let alone a vote.

 

[mudwhistle]

What I was saying was that claiming that this is some kind of democrat thing is clearly ludicrous for anyone looking at it from a rational perspective. You might well have a point that congress is looking at something objectionable. But when you attempt to make this out as some sort of partisan effort, you are clearly way off base. And that is what you are doing. It is not the left that is pushing for this amendment. In this case, you happen to be putting forth a liberal position - you commie, socialist, pinko, liberal elitist.

Leahy is a Democrat.

So what's your point?

I wouldn't accept this from anyone. So stop with partisanship.

The problem I see is that right now Democrats have become a threat because they have the power. The GOP is fairly impotent. All they can do is whine and try to prevent the inevidable. The rules are on the left's side right now. Abusive government is still abusive regardless it's source.

What we've witnessed this year should scare the hell out of everyone. Whatever the powers that be want they get. And right now they are Democrats.

Stop with the partisanship? "Folks, the Democrats feel they have a mandate to do this." That was you, not me. You say it doesn't matter, yet it is you are who quick to point out which party Leahy was in and utterly ignore the fact that it is too essentially conservative organizations which wanted this put in.

What exactly did we witness this year which scares you? I mean, aside from a proposed amendment which has not yet even seen a committee meeting let alone a vote.

What did we witness?

Playing dumb are we?

And to boot you want to blame this on the other side? Oh, I know, the usual Obama excuse, "it was a Bush program".

That is one hell of a rationalization.

You know, we could take every program that Bush signed into law and warp it all to hell and you would accept it as being Bush's fault. Once it is fundimentally changed it removes any culpability by the original founder, the way changing the constitution warps it's original intent.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Patriot Act does not give anyone cart blanch to run roughshod over our civil liberties.

 

[Politico]

Whatcha hidin' in those emails mud?

 

[WillowTree]

Folks, Demcrats feel they have a mandate to do this. You need to be aware of how close we are to being a police state.

Hey! This is what the majority of Americans voted for. I don't feel a bit sorry for them.

 

[mudwhistle]

Whatcha hidin' in those emails mud?

Anyone who wants the government rooting around in your emails raise your hand.

If you think this is a joke you deserve everything you get.

I don't.


This kind of thing scares the shit out of folks from communist countries.


What Obama and the Democrats want is for us to give up and just let them do anything they want. Despots stay in power because fighting them seems futile. They learn to accept getting reamed.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Holder and Obama are already an accessory to murder, so yeah, this is the next natural step.

The same people who claim to the be ideological descendants of our Founding Fathers now have stationed the troops at the post office to read all our mail

Frank i work at the PO.....there are no troops there......you are being lied too.....

You wear a uniform don't you?

I don't think he meant it literally.

'Leaky Leahy' wants to make it easier to spy on us.

Possible reasons could be:

1. Finding out your political affiliations before elections
2. Using it as blackmail against political opponents
3. Monitoring your surfing habits
4. Using the information to spot Christians, gun owners, tax-cheats
5. Gaining access to bank accounts

Right now the government can do all of this but Leahy is the frontrunner trying to make it easier to control us through the web without having to go through the messy process of using the legal system.

You wear a uniform don't you?

yea....but i dont read the mail.....

I don't think he meant it literally.

neither did i.....

 

[PratchettFan]

Leahy is a Democrat.

So what's your point?

I wouldn't accept this from anyone. So stop with partisanship.

The problem I see is that right now Democrats have become a threat because they have the power. The GOP is fairly impotent. All they can do is whine and try to prevent the inevidable. The rules are on the left's side right now. Abusive government is still abusive regardless it's source.

What we've witnessed this year should scare the hell out of everyone. Whatever the powers that be want they get. And right now they are Democrats.

Stop with the partisanship? "Folks, the Democrats feel they have a mandate to do this." That was you, not me. You say it doesn't matter, yet it is you are who quick to point out which party Leahy was in and utterly ignore the fact that it is too essentially conservative organizations which wanted this put in.

What exactly did we witness this year which scares you? I mean, aside from a proposed amendment which has not yet even seen a committee meeting let alone a vote.

What did we witness?

Playing dumb are we?

And to boot you want to blame this on the other side? Oh, I know, the usual Obama excuse, "it was a Bush program".

That is one hell of a rationalization.

You know, we could take every program that Bush signed into law and warp it all to hell and you would accept it as being Bush's fault. Once it is fundimentally changed it removes any culpability by the original founder, the way changing the constitution warps it's original intent.

I don't recall mentioning Bush. I asked you what scared you. You say I am playing dumb but the reality is that so far I haven't seen anything even slightly scary. But you apparently have, so what was it? You seem to think it obvious so it really should not be a problem to point out specifics.

BTW, you don't know what side I am on. You just think you do.

 

[mudwhistle]

Stop with the partisanship? "Folks, the Democrats feel they have a mandate to do this." That was you, not me. You say it doesn't matter, yet it is you are who quick to point out which party Leahy was in and utterly ignore the fact that it is too essentially conservative organizations which wanted this put in.

What exactly did we witness this year which scares you? I mean, aside from a proposed amendment which has not yet even seen a committee meeting let alone a vote.

What did we witness?

Playing dumb are we?

And to boot you want to blame this on the other side? Oh, I know, the usual Obama excuse, "it was a Bush program".

That is one hell of a rationalization.

You know, we could take every program that Bush signed into law and warp it all to hell and you would accept it as being Bush's fault. Once it is fundimentally changed it removes any culpability by the original founder, the way changing the constitution warps it's original intent.

I don't recall mentioning Bush. I asked you what scared you. You say I am playing dumb but the reality is that so far I haven't seen anything even slightly scary. But you apparently have, so what was it? You seem to think it obvious so it really should not be a problem to point out specifics.

BTW, you don't know what side I am on. You just think you do.

Yes, as I thought.

Playing dumb.

The fact that you can't think of anything that has happened that scares you tells me plenty.

You don't see a problem with what Leahy is doing but you do think it's unfair for me to criticize him. The fact that he's a Democrat and you felt compelled to defend him tells me enough to be able to say with some sort of certainty who's side you're on, so why don't you stop wasting my time and I won't waste any of your's responding to your nonsense.

And you didn't have to mention Bush. I know the routine. Your representatives in Washington use Bush as a cover for just about every nefarious act they they try to pull.