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

[PratchettFan]

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.

So... you can't actually point anything out. You are just generally scared.

I didn't defend Leahy. I just found it silly to make this about Democrats when, if you had actually bothered to read the article, it was two conservative organizations which were pushing it. If you are going to spend so much time being scared, you should at least take a little bit of that time to find out what it is you are scared of. Not that you will. You'll let others tell you and you won't question any of it. Very useful things, scared people. So easy to manipulate, so easy to tell what to think.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

So... you can't actually point anything out. You are just generally scared.

I didn't defend Leahy. I just found it silly to make this about Democrats when, if you had actually bothered to read the article, it was two conservative organizations which were pushing it. If you are going to spend so much time being scared, you should at least take a little bit of that time to find out what it is you are scared of. Not that you will. You'll let others tell you and you won't question any of it. Very useful things, scared people. So easy to manipulate, so easy to tell what to think.

You should know.

I'm not going to allow you to deflect this thread into a discussion about any other topic. Before you know it we'll be out in the weeds talking about unrelated issues.

You still haven't pointed out the two conservative organizations pushing it. I've read the article.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

So... you can't actually point anything out. You are just generally scared.

I didn't defend Leahy. I just found it silly to make this about Democrats when, if you had actually bothered to read the article, it was two conservative organizations which were pushing it. If you are going to spend so much time being scared, you should at least take a little bit of that time to find out what it is you are scared of. Not that you will. You'll let others tell you and you won't question any of it. Very useful things, scared people. So easy to manipulate, so easy to tell what to think.

You should know.

I'm not going to allow you to deflect this thread into a discussion about any other topic. Before you know it we'll be out in the weeds talking about unrelated issues.

You still haven't pointed out the two conservative organizations pushing it. I've read the article.

I did point them out. I listed them specifically. I also pointed out that it was the ACLU which opposed it. But that didn't fit your agenda so you simply ignored it. You really are scared, aren't you. It must be hard to go through life like that.

 

[mudwhistle]

So... you can't actually point anything out. You are just generally scared.

I didn't defend Leahy. I just found it silly to make this about Democrats when, if you had actually bothered to read the article, it was two conservative organizations which were pushing it. If you are going to spend so much time being scared, you should at least take a little bit of that time to find out what it is you are scared of. Not that you will. You'll let others tell you and you won't question any of it. Very useful things, scared people. So easy to manipulate, so easy to tell what to think.

You should know.

I'm not going to allow you to deflect this thread into a discussion about any other topic. Before you know it we'll be out in the weeds talking about unrelated issues.

You still haven't pointed out the two conservative organizations pushing it. I've read the article.

I did point them out. I listed them specifically. I also pointed out that it was the ACLU which opposed it. But that didn't fit your agenda so you simply ignored it. You really are scared, aren't you. It must be hard to go through life like that.

If you're done being a horses ass I'll get back to the point, Sock.



If you mean the National District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriff's Association, they were objecting to it, not pushing it. You need to go back and re-read it because you've gotten the wrong impression. Despite what you think you're not dealing with a fucken idiot.

Like I said before, you really have no fear of what has been going on because you support it. You must not believe in the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.



If you're a freedom loving American this should scare the shit out of you. And I for one will do everything in my power to stop people like you from implementing this kind of abusive government.

The problem with political action groups that push this kind of progressive policy is they tend to overreach. Eventually they show their hand and they're not able to fool people anymore. Then comes the backlash. Then there is blood in the streets. At least that is what happens everywhere else. Why can't it happen here?

Now go back to being whatever jackass you are here on the board, Sock.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Whatcha hidin' in those emails mud?

Well that's just it...... NOTHING one posts on the Internet has a hope in hell of remaining private. And, it is recorded on the Internet forever. Lots of people seem to be comfy with Mark Zuckerberg reading everyone's emails on Facebook. As long as one isn't doing anything illegal, then......I don't know, it doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. Don't post anything sensitive electronically. We all know that already.

 

[mudwhistle]

Whatcha hidin' in those emails mud?

Well that's just it...... NOTHING one posts on the Internet has a hope in hell of remaining private. And, it is recorded on the Internet forever. Lots of people seem to be comfy with Mark Zuckerberg reading everyone's emails on Facebook. As long as one isn't doing anything illegal, then......I don't know, it doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. Don't post anything sensitive electronically. We all know that already.

One of the sheeple chimes in.

Do you want somebody who has the power to lock you up reading your mail without a warrant?

Hate to tell you this but sometimes you have no control over what shows up in you inbox. Passwords to bank accounts, ads from web sites you've visited. That's why they call it an inbox. And even if you delete it I'm sure there is a record from the source that can be traced. The wrong impression can be formed just looking at your surfing habits. Maybe somebody in a position of power can use it to attack your character if you decide to protest their policies.

I remember when the Bush NSA was accused of spying on Americans when they were caught Date-mining looking for terrorist sending messages out of the country. Now you don't mind the IRS looking into your private communications. The howls from the left where amazing.

My how people change.

 

[PratchettFan]

You should know.

I'm not going to allow you to deflect this thread into a discussion about any other topic. Before you know it we'll be out in the weeds talking about unrelated issues.

You still haven't pointed out the two conservative organizations pushing it. I've read the article.

I did point them out. I listed them specifically. I also pointed out that it was the ACLU which opposed it. But that didn't fit your agenda so you simply ignored it. You really are scared, aren't you. It must be hard to go through life like that.

If you're done being a horses ass I'll get back to the point, Sock.



If you mean the National District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriff's Association, they were objecting to it, not pushing it. You need to go back and re-read it because you've gotten the wrong impression. Despite what you think you're not dealing with a fucken idiot.

Like I said before, you really have no fear of what has been going on because you support it. You must not believe in the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.



If you're a freedom loving American this should scare the shit out of you. And I for one will do everything in my power to stop people like you from implementing this kind of abusive government.

The problem with political action groups that push this kind of progressive policy is they tend to overreach. Eventually they show their hand and they're not able to fool people anymore. Then comes the backlash. Then there is blood in the streets. At least that is what happens everywhere else. Why can't it happen here?

Now go back to being whatever jackass you are here on the board, Sock.

No, you re-read it. Those two organizations objected to the earlier version of the bill which would have required search warrants. They wanted that removed and the portions of the amendments you are upset about were a compromise to satisfy law enforcement. The Sheriffs, DAs, and Justice Dept. It was the ACLU which was objecting to the amendments.

As to you doing anything in your power, you're not even taking the time to try and figure out where the source of the problem is. You've been told that the "progressives" are bad so you just slap that label on anything you don't like. That may be easy, but it pretty much makes you powerless. Read what the article says, not what you think it should say.

 

[mudwhistle]

I did point them out. I listed them specifically. I also pointed out that it was the ACLU which opposed it. But that didn't fit your agenda so you simply ignored it. You really are scared, aren't you. It must be hard to go through life like that.

If you're done being a horses ass I'll get back to the point, Sock.



If you mean the National District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriff's Association, they were objecting to it, not pushing it. You need to go back and re-read it because you've gotten the wrong impression. Despite what you think you're not dealing with a fucken idiot.

Like I said before, you really have no fear of what has been going on because you support it. You must not believe in the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.



If you're a freedom loving American this should scare the shit out of you. And I for one will do everything in my power to stop people like you from implementing this kind of abusive government.

The problem with political action groups that push this kind of progressive policy is they tend to overreach. Eventually they show their hand and they're not able to fool people anymore. Then comes the backlash. Then there is blood in the streets. At least that is what happens everywhere else. Why can't it happen here?

Now go back to being whatever jackass you are here on the board, Sock.

No, you re-read it. Those two organizations objected to the earlier version of the bill which would have required search warrants. They wanted that removed and the portions of the amendments you are upset about were a compromise to satisfy law enforcement. The Sheriffs, DAs, and Justice Dept. It was the ACLU which was objecting to the amendments.

As to you doing anything in your power, you're not even taking the time to try and figure out where the source of the problem is. You've been told that the "progressives" are bad so you just slap that label on anything you don't like. That may be easy, but it pretty much makes you powerless. Read what the article says, not what you think it should say.

I think you need to re-read it.

1. The article does not show what you claim

2. A link does take you to another article that claims it

3. The problem you overlooked didn't arrise till Leahy tried to include emails in the bill.

But Leahy's decision to meld together the video-sharing and email-warrant bills threw a roadblock in front of Netflix's lobbying efforts by irking law enforcement, including the Obama Justice Department.

A person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have been expressing their displeasure about requiring search warrants. The department is on record as opposing such a requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.

The Obama DOJ is who objected to warrants where emails are concerned. .

 

[Politico]

Why are you guys still feeding this thread? It's not even correct. The feds already can read your mail. THis bill is an attempt to make it harder. Not easier as the foil flinging implies.

 

[freedombecki]

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

I wonder how many Amendments to the Bill of Rights that bill would violate?

What a buncha anti-American cads we have up in Washington. Throw 'em out!

 

[mudwhistle]

Why are you guys still feeding this thread? It's not even correct. The feds already can read your mail. THis bill is an attempt to make it harder. Not easier as the foil flinging implies.

No it is not.

The White House DOJ wants the requirements for warrants and probable cause removed from the law.

This bill was supposed to be about Netflix video sharing and allowing members to transfer information to their Facebook accounts. Patrick Leahy tried to bind emails into the legislation and the White House said "Well, if you're gonna do that we want to be able to search emails without a warrant".

 

[Politico]

They can and do read emails now. No warrant necessary.

 

[mudwhistle]

They can and do read emails now. No warrant necessary.

I'm sure they can and I'm sure they do but I want a link.

 

[HUGGY]

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.....

Nope! I'm pretty sure Frankie just pulls this stuff right outta his ass.