Senate bill would let FBI read your emails without a court order

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
The 2017 Intelligence Authorization Act would deal a blow to privacy by making government surveillance easier.


Better watch what you put in email.

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday approved a bill that would make it easier for the government to read what you're writing online.

The 2017 Intelligence Authorization Act, if enacted into law, would let the FBI obtain email records without a court order. All the agency would need is a National Security Letter, which lets the FBI get information from companies about their customers without alerting the person being investigated. Currently, the FBI can access phone records that way, but not emails.

The bill is the latest move by the federal government to shore up its powers when it comes to surveilling citizens. The government has been battling Apple and other tech companies for more access to data stored on devices. Law enforcement argues it can't fight crimes unless it has access to information on mobile gadgets. Technology companies and rights groups argue that features like strong encryption, which scrambles data so it can be read only by the intended recipient, are needed to keep people safe and protect privacy.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and Vice Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Tuesday in a joint statement that the 2017 Intelligence Authorization Act makes it easier for the government to keep Americans safe.

"The threat of terrorism remains high, so it's vital that we provide intelligence agencies with all the resources they need to prevent attacks both at home and abroad," Feinstein said.

But Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the lone dissenting voice on the 15-member Senate committee, vowed to work on reversing the "dangerous provisions."

"This bill takes a hatchet to important protections for Americans' liberty," he said in a statement. "This bill would mean more government surveillance of Americans, less due process and less independent oversight of US intelligence agencies. Worse, neither the intelligence agencies, nor the bill's sponsors have shown any evidence that these changes would do anything to make Americans more secure."

Now that the bill has passed in the Intelligence Committee, it next will be considered by the full Senate.
___________________________

How's that fer sum liburty?
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,839
How can that shit even be legal? Congress' obsession with shitting on the Constitution is fucking despicable.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
How can that shit even be legal? Congress' obsession with shitting on the Constitution is fucking despicable.
It's a trade off. I want the lawmakers to also consider safety of the citizenry and try to find a balance. I believe the ability to access emails is needed and you need not worry. The intelligence group doesn't care or have the manpower to just peruse people's routine emails.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
.It's a trade off. I want the lawmakers to also consider safety of the citizenry and try to find a balance I believe the ability to access emails is needed and you need not worry. The intelligence group doesn't care or have the manpower to just peruse people's routine emails.
Yet when this his argument is used for gun safety it's an assault on the 2nd amendment.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,839
It's a trade off. I want the lawmakers to also consider safety of the citizenry and try to find a balance. I believe the ability to access emails is needed and you need not worry. The intelligence group doesn't care or have the manpower to just peruse people's routine emails.
Needed? A person's right to privacy is the 4th Amendment. Fuck what Congress thinks it needs. You NEVER trade freedoms and rights for "security". That creates a police state and leads to communism.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,839
Yet when this his argument is used for gun safety it's an assault on the 2nd amendment.
In this instance, it's an assault on the 4th Amendment.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Needed? A person's right to privacy is the 4th Amendment. Fuck what Congress thinks it needs. You NEVER trade freedoms and rights for "security". That creates a police state and leads to communism.
There is also a greater good consideration and I had rather be safe than be concerned that some individual read my email that said I'll meet you at the golf course. My privacy in the example isn't harmed nor do I think anyone in government is concerned about.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,839
There is also a greater good consideration and I had rather be safe than be concerned that some individual read my email that said I'll meet you at the golf course. My privacy in the example isn't harmed nor do I think anyone in government is concerned about.
Under no circumstance is freely handing away your Constitutional rights to the government "a greater good". Or worse yet, having the government unilaterally strip you of them. That's called tyranny.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Under no circumstance is freely handing away your Constitutional rights to the government "a greater good". Or worse yet, having the government unilaterally strip you of them. That's called tyranny.
It's a matter of opinion whether giving access is more needed than what is considered a privacy invasion. The government could care less about people's e mails unless there is reason to believe they might be an instrument utilized for a national security breach or criminal involvement. I just don't see it as a big deal personally.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,839
It's a matter of opinion whether giving access is more needed than what is considered a privacy invasion. The government could care less about people's e mails unless there is reason to believe they might be an instrument utilized for a national security breach or criminal involvement. I just don't see it as a big deal personally.
I couldn't care less what the government thinks it needs. WE decide what the government needs, not the other way around. And, while you may not care about this issue, what happens when it involves an issue that you do care about and some shlub tries to tell you that it doesn't matter and that you should just follow along like cattle? Eventually, it leads to the government controlling everything and the populous being told to shut up, that it doesn't matter, and that it's for our own good. Again, that's communism. Stop supporting it.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I couldn't care less what the government thinks it needs. WE decide what the government needs, not the other way around. And, while you may not care about this issue, what happens when it involves an issue that you do care about and some shlub tries to tell you that it doesn't matter and that you should just follow along like cattle? Eventually, it leads to the government controlling everything and the populous being told to shut up, that it doesn't matter, and that it's for our own good. Again, that's communism. Stop supporting it.
I don't support communism and I don't see this as some clandestine move to enslave the population. I would be interested however to hear why you think the constitution is being manipulated in this instance. Privacy isn't necessarily a constitutional issue. Rights of privacy does not carry with it the right to veil unlawful actions and if there is a suspicion that an activity is possibly unlawful then there is a duty to be diligent. This is what I perceive this issue is about rather than being a conduit to spy on the average citizen. I can assure you that big brother doesn't have the time or resources to waste on frivolous monitoring.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,839
I don't support communism and I don't see this as some clandestine move to enslave the population. I would be interested however to hear why you think the constitution is being manipulated in this instance. Privacy isn't necessarily a constitutional issue. Rights of privacy does not carry with it the right to veil unlawful actions and if there is a suspicion that an activity is possibly unlawful then there is a duty to be diligent. This is what I perceive this issue is about rather than being a conduit to spy on the average citizen. I can assure you that big brother doesn't have the time or resources to waste on frivolous monitoring.
How is it unlawful? Simple. The government needs to invade privacy in order to determine if a potentially unlawful email is being sent. Meaning, they judge before there is proof. Again, they will be allowed to do this WITHOUT a court order. That violates a persons' right to privacy.

Also, privacy is absolutely a constitutional issue. The 4th Amendment is there for a reason.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
How is it unlawful? Simple. The government needs to invade privacy in order to determine if a potentially unlawful email is being sent. Meaning, they judge before there is proof. Again, they will be allowed to do this WITHOUT a court order. That violates a persons' right to privacy.

Also, privacy is absolutely a constitutional issue. The 4th Amendment is there for a reason.
The 4th amendment is about illegal seizure and invasion of privacy without probable cause. I think I have stated that the authorities were not interested in just monitoring mundane e mails. If there is reason to believe that someone or some organization who is using the e mail system to precipitate potential unlawful acts then they should have the power to monitor their e mails. It isn't that complicated for me. Investigtive and intelligence people do a lot of ground work to make that determination before they just routinely read e mails or monitor calls, etc.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
It's no more reasonable to say that the government should be allowed access to emails anymore than they should be allowed to look through your physical mail for evidence of criminal activity.

The requirement to look at an email should be proof of a crime that will be or has been committed, and proof that the person or organization whose email you want to look through has ties to the crime. Anything less than that and it's an undo attack on our civil liberties.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,839
It's no more reasonable to say that the government should be allowed access to emails anymore than they should be allowed to look through your physical mail for evidence of criminal activity.

The requirement to look at an email should be proof of a crime that will be or has been committed, and proof that the person or organization whose email you want to look through has ties to the crime. Anything less than that and it's an undo attack on our civil liberties.
THANK YOU!!
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,839
The 4th amendment is about illegal seizure and invasion of privacy without probable cause. I think I have stated that the authorities were not interested in just monitoring mundane e mails. If there is reason to believe that someone or some organization who is using the e mail system to precipitate potential unlawful acts then they should have the power to monitor their e mails. It isn't that complicated for me. Investigtive and intelligence people do a lot of ground work to make that determination before they just routinely read e mails or monitor calls, etc.
You're also basing that assumption on the belief that they will follow those rules. We both know they won't. When you then tack on the ability to monitor emails without a court order, meaning, no probable cause, you're literally giving up constitutional liberties because someone is telling you that you'll be "safe". Well, you know what? I feel plenty safe without those activties, and I'd prefer to keep it as it is. Or better yet, make me "less safe", because I'll know that more of my civil liberties will be returned to me...where they belong.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
It's no more reasonable to say that the government should be allowed access to emails anymore than they should be allowed to look through your physical mail for evidence of criminal activity.

The requirement to look at an email should be proof of a crime that will be or has been committed, and proof that the person or organization whose email you want to look through has ties to the crime. Anything less than that and it's an undo attack on our civil liberties.
The courts and congress disagree with you.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
You're also basing that assumption on the belief that they will follow those rules. We both know they won't. When you then tack on the ability to monitor emails without a court order, meaning, no probable cause, you're literally giving up constitutional liberties because someone is telling you that you'll be "safe". Well, you know what? I feel plenty safe without those activties, and I'd prefer to keep it as it is. Or better yet, make me "less safe", because I'll know that more of my civil liberties will be returned to me...where they belong.
I have my doubts that any of your e mails will be read.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
The courts and congress disagree with you.
The defense of civil liberties is an uphill battle, after all most of the people making these kind of determination have rarely needed to invoke them.

I think this shows how enormous of an election this is shaping up to be. Our SCOTUS will change drastically in the next 4 years.

Unfortunately neither presidential front runner is particularly Liberty minded.
 
Top Bottom