Friday, November 16, 2012

Get Some Of The Fourth Amendment Back

Last September, Zoe Lofgren, (D-CA 16), submitted a bill that modifies the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to strengthen the privacy of Internet and wireless users from outdated government surveillance laws. Her intent is to expand the protections of the Fourth Amendment to digital communications.

The bill modifies US Code 18 Section 2703. Here is the law in its current form.

(a) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage.  
A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section. 

Here is how the law would read if this bill is passed. Deleted parts are struck through and added parts are bolded italics.


(a) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage.   
A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less that is stored, held, or maintained by that service, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section. Within three days after a governmental entity received such contents from a service provider pursuant to this subsection, the governmental entity shall service upon, or deliver by registered or first-class mail, or other means reasonably calculated to be effective as specified by the court issuing the warrant to the subscriber, customer, or user a copy of the warrant and a notice that includes the information referenced in section 2705(a)4(A) and (B)(i), except that delayed notice may be provided pursuant to section 2705 of this title. 

If government agencies needed a search warrant to get information from companies like Google, then we may not see such an increase of information being handed over simply because it's requested. In the meantime, enjoy the irony of the head of America's super secret spy agency being taken down because the FBI simply asked Google for information.

4 comments:

Pontius is my Co-Pilot said...

If you voted, you can't complain.

This window-dressing bill aside, both Democrats and Republicans were perfectly clear during the election (and last 11 years) that they would continue to gut the Fourth Amendment.

If you voted for them, illegal surveillance is your fault, too.

If you voted, you can't whine.

Pilates Instructor said...

I protest Pontius.

Haven't you read the newspapers? Listened to Michael Moore, perchance?

Don't you realize that we Democrats had to vote for Obama to protect him from racial discrimination?

Do you realize how much the man has already suffered? Do you know that he had to settle for a second-rate degree from the so-called "Harvard Law School"? Just imagine what Obama might have accomplished if he had had a proper education, and wasn't exhausted by his menial work study job editing the Law Review.

As a Democrat, I believe firmly in voting for tolerance. I believe that every child,* regardless of the color of their skin, should have an equal opportunity to become president, coddle Wall Street, sign anti-labor trade deals, make secretive corrupt deals with Big Pharma, pollute the Gulf, ignore global warming, trample the Bill of Rights, expand the empire and wage unilateral war across the globe.

I have a dream today!

*Excluding US children Obama has already blown apart with drones, of course.

Anonymous said...

An effective anti-surveillance bill won't pass and if it did Obama wouldn't sign it, and if he signed it he still wouldn't obey it. It's kind of a non-issue. We live in a Stasi-style state by popular demand. The Democrats no longer believe in a living Constitution, a reversal of their stance during the Warren Court. Now even liberals argue that the Constitution is antiquated. Except for the bit establishing an electoral process apparently.

But, there are other issues harder to figure in today's news. If you asked "who is in charge of White House policy in the Middle East" today, the answer could only be Benjamin Netanyahu. It appears the Obama administration really didn't have any fall-back plans and Israel is taking advantage of the void by creating facts on the ground. This woudl would be a strange, and I suspect unpopular, lead-in to a wider war involving the US and Arab countries. I can't actually believe that Obama wanted Netanyahu to control the narrative and make the President look punked and subservient. Wasn't it only two weeks ago that Netanyahu was taunting Obama?

Two: During the election, Democrats argued that Obama shouldn't present an economic plan for tactical reasons, since Romney hadn't either. (I thought that was dumb and anti-democratic reasoning, but it apparently worked.) But now we're two weeks out and there's still nothing coherent from the White House, not even a strategy about the supposed fiscal cliff. Very odd. I don't believe Obama is going to screw over workers and homeowners in favor of Wall Street as he (and Bush) did in 2008, but it seems increasingly likely the White House hasn't presented a strategy because Obama actually has no strategy. Obama simply skated through the election because the opposition didn't challenge him and no candidate represented non-elite interests. The economy is still a pressing issue, and don't think Americans agree with the President that the working middle class is dead and should be forgotten, or that education is a complete answer when the costs are prohibitive.

The corporate media is all happy-talk about recovery and Obama's fresh start. But I don't think that narrative is sustainable if Democrats never actually do anything.










Anonymous said...

Well, at least the Democrats have scuttled Leahy's warrantless surveillance bill. For now.

I think what the Democrats were trying to do was gain more cover for surveillance (that probably already occurs) by having this anti-surveillance liberal in the House (which can't pass), and then a right-wing bill like Leahy's in the Senate.


The strategy is to make Obama look "centrist" while actually eroding the Fourth (and the First). Obama probably would have had some self-righteous signing statement for Leahy's bill, similar to the one for the unconstitutional indefinite detention bill. Which he also signed.

The White House has veered again to the far right, as it did in 2008, using liberals as a foil.

I suspect the administration had a role in Israel's aggression as well. We're being manipulated.