5 ms·

EFF on new electronic privacy bill - government will need to get warrants

67 points by grellas 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
DenisM 15y ago
Is it time to write your senator to support this bill? I wish EFF was more clear on the timing.
- Natsu 15y ago
  If you do, make it clear which parts you support and which parts need work. As they say, it's a mixed bag right now. Or if you just want to be lazy, write them and tell them that you're encouraged by their progress on the bill, but you would like them to listen to the EFF's concerns and send them a link to the article.
retrogradeorbit 15y ago
"government will need to get warrants" Yeah, sure it will. Just like it needs to obey the constitution. Or can't pass retroactive laws. This idea is based on the premise that the USA still has a strong rule of law. It doesn't.
- HedgeMage 15y ago
  The rule of law is only as strong as the people's opposition to it being broken. Of course the government flouts the law on a pretty regular basis: how many people are willing to stand up and say "enough!" -- and I don't mean only when there is nothing to lose?
  - retrogradeorbit 15y ago
    I agree in principle but disagree is specifics. Saying enough is enough will get you nowhere. The government will ignore whatever voice opposes it and do what it wants. And what are you going to do? Vote them out? By voting for the other wall-street backed, lobbyist owned stooge party? The big game is clearly rigged. And "the people" don't seem to have enough money and/or guns to change things. But maybe I'm wrong. I would express the underlying sentiment that I agree with as follows: the rule of law is only as strong as the belief that the legislature, executive and administration places in it. At the end of the day laws are just words on paper. It's our belief in them that makes them real. And there is less and less belief in them every day. And unfortunately the example shown, at least by many ex-colonies, is once the rule of law starts to slide it is a steady, self-fulfilling decline into bloodshed. I sure hope things can be turned around before such things, but I am far too cynical to believe in fairy tales. But I do so want to be proven wrong.
dtrizzle 15y ago
I rarely speak up on this issue because I'm sure most everyone in these parts disagrees, but I do prosecution and I believe it's important to at least see the other side of the issue. I understand why people want warrants. But I believe people thing it's as easy as filling it out and walking in and getting it signed. As it stands now, our courts are jammed up. Courts set 10-30 trials to start when there is only one courtroom available. People have to wait in line for hours to pay for traffic tickets. Yes, they have to wait to give the government money. Police officers wait in court to get warrants read and signed. They wait hours. Sometime they have to come back days later to be seen by a judge. In short, for a warrant requirement to be workable, we need a lot more judges, courts, and police officers. As it stands now, a warrant requirement will make it impractical to prosecute lower level offenses due to the time and resources it would take to get a warrant. For instance, stalking cases, restraining order violations (with electronic contact), criminal threats, etc. will go unprosecuted. That leaves a whole lot of crime victims with very little recourse.
- illumen 15y ago
  Or, you could aim for less prosecutions of crimes that don't matter, and could aim for fixing social problems that cause people to commit crimes. For example, work towards reducing homelessness. Towards harm minimization policies for drug users. For example, do not allow media companies or other corporate companies to abuse criminal courts to collect civil debts. Work on fixing those problems, and then there will be less waste of the courts time.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    Not to be a smartass, but isn't that what public defenders do? Remember, politicians pass budgets, make policy, and are ultimately the authors of laws. Prosecutors can advocate for the sort of policies you describe up to a point (our AG in California inclines this way, and her Republican opponent at the last election had a variety of reformist ideas too). But it's specialized work. If the DoJ assigns an attorney to prosecute cybercrime, there's not much s/he can do about the the drug war or reforming the copyright system. At the higher levels, prosecution is more of a political position - a district attorney, attorney general, or a US attorney does have a fair amount of flexibility and influence over policy. But there are relatively few of those jobs, and if you don't have one you don't have a great deal of freedom as a junior prosecutor to go off in a different direction. Even high level prosecutors are subject to a great deal of political pressure from legislators. The other thing to bear in mind is the cost. The private-sector legal industry can pay very well indeed. Wages in the public sector are pretty dismal by comparison. Federal judges are paid less (~$145k) than first-year associates at a big law firm (~$160k). The Chief Justice of the United States is paid about $220k. It's a terrible deal, and all the underlying budgets are badly underfunded as well. Not just pay; last time I looked the DoJ's 2012 budget for electronic discovery (document management systems) was only $20 million. Corporations often spend more on a single case. Most of the DoJ budget goes to law enforcement and prisons; attorneys get 6-7% and the court system gets about 3%. DoJ gets about $30 billion in total; to put that in context, DHS gets closer to $60 billion. In many ways, we get what we pay for.
joe_the_user 15y ago
Oddly enough, Leahy seems to be one of the ones who introduced the (draconian) "Protect Intellectual Property" act. I wonder what the EFF's strategy in lauding him is. http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=142072 http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=142072
- jaskerr 15y ago
  That you take the good (enough) when you can get it?

67 points by grellas 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

DenisM 15y ago

Is it time to write your senator to support this bill? I wish EFF was more clear on the timing.

Natsu 15y ago
If you do, make it clear which parts you support and which parts need work. As they say, it's a mixed bag right now. Or if you just want to be lazy, write them and tell them that you're encouraged by their progress on the bill, but you would like them to listen to the EFF's concerns and send them a link to the article.

retrogradeorbit 15y ago

"government will need to get warrants" Yeah, sure it will. Just like it needs to obey the constitution. Or can't pass retroactive laws. This idea is based on the premise that the USA still has a strong rule of law. It doesn't.

HedgeMage 15y ago
The rule of law is only as strong as the people's opposition to it being broken. Of course the government flouts the law on a pretty regular basis: how many people are willing to stand up and say "enough!" -- and I don't mean only when there is nothing to lose?
- retrogradeorbit 15y ago
  I agree in principle but disagree is specifics. Saying enough is enough will get you nowhere. The government will ignore whatever voice opposes it and do what it wants. And what are you going to do? Vote them out? By voting for the other wall-street backed, lobbyist owned stooge party? The big game is clearly rigged. And "the people" don't seem to have enough money and/or guns to change things. But maybe I'm wrong. I would express the underlying sentiment that I agree with as follows: the rule of law is only as strong as the belief that the legislature, executive and administration places in it. At the end of the day laws are just words on paper. It's our belief in them that makes them real. And there is less and less belief in them every day. And unfortunately the example shown, at least by many ex-colonies, is once the rule of law starts to slide it is a steady, self-fulfilling decline into bloodshed. I sure hope things can be turned around before such things, but I am far too cynical to believe in fairy tales. But I do so want to be proven wrong.

dtrizzle 15y ago

I rarely speak up on this issue because I'm sure most everyone in these parts disagrees, but I do prosecution and I believe it's important to at least see the other side of the issue. I understand why people want warrants. But I believe people thing it's as easy as filling it out and walking in and getting it signed. As it stands now, our courts are jammed up. Courts set 10-30 trials to start when there is only one courtroom available. People have to wait in line for hours to pay for traffic tickets. Yes, they have to wait to give the government money. Police officers wait in court to get warrants read and signed. They wait hours. Sometime they have to come back days later to be seen by a judge. In short, for a warrant requirement to be workable, we need a lot more judges, courts, and police officers. As it stands now, a warrant requirement will make it impractical to prosecute lower level offenses due to the time and resources it would take to get a warrant. For instance, stalking cases, restraining order violations (with electronic contact), criminal threats, etc. will go unprosecuted. That leaves a whole lot of crime victims with very little recourse.

illumen 15y ago
Or, you could aim for less prosecutions of crimes that don't matter, and could aim for fixing social problems that cause people to commit crimes. For example, work towards reducing homelessness. Towards harm minimization policies for drug users. For example, do not allow media companies or other corporate companies to abuse criminal courts to collect civil debts. Work on fixing those problems, and then there will be less waste of the courts time.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Not to be a smartass, but isn't that what public defenders do? Remember, politicians pass budgets, make policy, and are ultimately the authors of laws. Prosecutors can advocate for the sort of policies you describe up to a point (our AG in California inclines this way, and her Republican opponent at the last election had a variety of reformist ideas too). But it's specialized work. If the DoJ assigns an attorney to prosecute cybercrime, there's not much s/he can do about the the drug war or reforming the copyright system. At the higher levels, prosecution is more of a political position - a district attorney, attorney general, or a US attorney does have a fair amount of flexibility and influence over policy. But there are relatively few of those jobs, and if you don't have one you don't have a great deal of freedom as a junior prosecutor to go off in a different direction. Even high level prosecutors are subject to a great deal of political pressure from legislators. The other thing to bear in mind is the cost. The private-sector legal industry can pay very well indeed. Wages in the public sector are pretty dismal by comparison. Federal judges are paid less (~$145k) than first-year associates at a big law firm (~$160k). The Chief Justice of the United States is paid about $220k. It's a terrible deal, and all the underlying budgets are badly underfunded as well. Not just pay; last time I looked the DoJ's 2012 budget for electronic discovery (document management systems) was only $20 million. Corporations often spend more on a single case. Most of the DoJ budget goes to law enforcement and prisons; attorneys get 6-7% and the court system gets about 3%. DoJ gets about $30 billion in total; to put that in context, DHS gets closer to $60 billion. In many ways, we get what we pay for.

joe_the_user 15y ago

Oddly enough, Leahy seems to be one of the ones who introduced the (draconian) "Protect Intellectual Property" act. I wonder what the EFF's strategy in lauding him is. http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=142072 http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=142072

jaskerr 15y ago
That you take the good (enough) when you can get it?