Shared publicly  - 
 
Last year, when Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced an electronic privacy bill, he said it "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

Now it turns out that a quietly revised version of Leahy's bill has deleted that warrant requirement. In fact, it would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access your e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, Twitter direct messages, private Google+ posts, etc. without one. 

My article is below. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
16
6
Nathan Linn's profile photoZach Williams's profile photoDaniel Brue's profile photoDave Jansen's profile photo
10 comments
 
for me, and although I am Arabic and Tunisian, I see that this law is necessary and for the safety of United States must understand that the situation in the world is more stable and there is the danger of all sides then it is necessary to take steps to identify this danger before it is too late, I say to the Americans formally it is your safety that the FBI or the CIA or even the U.S. national security must take preventive measures and which one is correct does not have to be bothered otherwise personally I see it is necessary that the government control my emails, and he who speaks of freedom, the threshold of the freedom of the individual must not exceed the limits of what government can see, especially as the U.S. is very broad citizen can find its Libèté within its local government but when the case must need to respect what the federal government I repeated this law is very necessary for the good of Americans and for the rest of the peoples of the world, organized crime, terrorism, extremism ....... are rising and the U.S. is a goal and then sible this law is one of the measures that the government must take and all the Americans I say formally how to defend your country with all means and never leave a someone play with your safety and property, and know that your encetres whips it well for the U.S. gets this place in the world
 
Why bother writing a bill that's going to be struck down on the first Supreme Court challenge?
 
Or not, SCOTUS has pretty much written the entire 4th off though lately (with that whole GPS and mosaic thing) it seems to be making a slight comeback though the lower courts continue to ignore the ruling.  I will have more faith in them if they rule against the state in both Harris and Jardines and BROAD SO!
 
The first step toward security is to end a policy of international provocation. The second step is to introduce stronger but rational home defense policy--basically, emulate the stance of a nation such as Switzerland. In the meantime legislation might affirm that communications via phone or internet have the same protections as communications via postal mail. Period.
 
+Gary McGath I so want to say "He's a Dem, what do you expect" except the other guys are just as bad :(
 
+T Sunclades is right -- the article didn't initially include a link to the text of what Leahy had planned to propose as amendments. It does now (scroll to the bottom for an embedded PDF).
 
+charles platt Yep. The problem with enacting such legislation, though, is that law enforcement will oppose it. Combine that with risk-averse technologically-clueless former-prosecutor politicians and you end up with the status quo (which is not terribly privacy-protective). The courts are actually doing a better job of applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet, albeit slowly.
Add a comment...