Law enforcement is about to read everyone's email and browsing history -- without a warrant
So long, private browsing!
The government is about to get sweeping power to read your email, search your Facebook, and even read messages sent at work or on other private email networks, all without a warrant. You can thank Senator Patrick Leahy for the intrusion.
The new version of the bill would allow some 22 government agencies the power to snoop your inboxes to read email, Facebook posts, and Twitter direct messages, as well as Google Docs and messages sent on private networks, all without a warrant and with no urgency to notify you that it happened.
The bill would even allow the FBI and Homeland Security full access to your internet accounts without so much as notifying you or a judge. Even your private browsing history could be searched.
Originally, the bill was written to require a warrant signed by a judge and backed by probable cause before such an intrusive search could be conducted. Now, all of that becomes unnecessary for prying eyes. Now that law enforcement has had their say, it's been dramatically rewritten.
Among the outrageous provisions now written into the bill:
-At least 22 federal agencies may now have warrantless access to your electronic correspondence with as little as a subpoena. No more permission from a judge is required, and no warrant backed by probable cause is necessary.
-Any law enforcement agency may access your email including private accounts such as those used at a school, university, or at work.
-Any agency may read your email at any time if they declare an "emergency" need to do so. There will be no court review before this happens; shoot first ask questions later.
-Internet and other providers must tell law enforcement officials first if they plan to notify victims of this surveillance of any intrusion. This amounts to asking permission to tell you that your private correspondence has been read. It is a 180 degree reversal from existing policy.
-The bill delays notification of customers from the current 3 day requirement to 10 business days. Those 10 business days can be dragged out to a year if law enforcement chooses.
This means that law enforcement can now monitor your personal communications at almost any time under the pretext of an "emergency."
Currently, most Americans would assume this would involve terror suspects and the need to move quickly and quietly to investigate their online activities. However, getting permission to access the private networks of suspected terrorists isn't that difficult.
Instead, the aim of various agencies is to use these sweeping new permissions to investigate anyone they deem to be engaged in illegal activity. More than likely, they may "discover" illegal activity that was not previously sought as a result of a warrantless search - and they can prosecute.
Presently, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant supported by probable cause and included in the warrant shall be a description of what is sought. This protection would be stripped by the new law.
While the proposal appears to be blatantly unconstitutional, privacy advocates should not rely on this defense. The government routinely passes laws that are later found to be unconstitutional, and occasionally, supreme courts uphold them.
The Supreme Court of the United States once upheld slavery, segregation, the oppression of women, and more recently, ruled against religious freedom as per Obamacare and the HHS contraception and abortifacient edict, which is still being fought in several states.
Also worrying the matter is the reality that the internet remains a sort of virtual "untamed" wild west where the laws and rules remain vague. The current bill is only just now attempting to update a 1980's era privacy bill to meet online concerns.
Most internet service providers are objecting to the proposed bill because it strips privacy rights away from customers. As more service providers try to encourage their clients to use cloud-based services, the erosion of internet privacy is discouraging them. Users enjoy more privacy if they retain their information on hard drives, media devices such as USB drives, or even in a cookie jar.
If the law passes, it will be a setback for online privacy as well as the civil rights of all Americans. A vote on the bill is expected next week.
© 2012, Distributed by NEWS CONSORTIUM.
Pope Francis Prayer Intentions for December 2013
General Intention: Victimized Children. That children who are victims of abandonment or violence may find the love and protection they need.
Missionary Intention: Prepare the Savior's Coming. That Christians, enlightened by the Word incarnate, may prepare humanity for the Savior's coming.
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More Politics & Policy News
- Marriage Liberation Movement: Global Defense of Marriage in France, China and Around the World
- Principles are expensive: Republican governors missing out on billions in Medicaid funds
- Rush Limbaugh is Wrong, Karen Finney of MSNBC is Nuts: Pope Francis and Capitalism
- NSA REVELATIONS: Ways that would have been previously unimaginable
- Gap between rich and poor: Income gap threatens U.S. 'way of life,' Obama says
- Increasing numbers of young people opposing Obamacare
- Vatican, State Department defend embassy move
- Precedent set by Obama may lead to revolt against federal government, expert says
- Oops, we didn't think of that! Utah may pull NSA plug by cutting water supply to facility
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?