7 ms·

Leahy scuttles his warrantless e-mail surveillance bill

82 points by jsm386 14y ago

swohns 14y ago
Scary wasn't disclosed until today, it was scheduled for a vote this week.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  It's a better story when there's a looming deadline. A story about something that doesn't seem urgent isn't going to get many eyeballs.
- dromidas 14y ago
  Even more scary was that it was a bill originally advertised as improving email security and then was quietly rewritten to damaging email security (but then wasn't advertised that it did a 180). Hurray for the internet. Hard to screw people over by this shady business these days.
- ajross 14y ago
  Sadly this is the way non-partisan issues are legislated in the US system. But the system worked -- the vote was scheduled, the relevant interest groups noticed, the media reported it, the people contacted their representatives and the bill was pulled. We win. Note also that "the vote" was a committee vote. There were plenty of other chances to stop this. This isn't the best system, obviously, but it does work. So don't despair, just be vigilant.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    This isn't the best system, obviously, but it does work. So don't despair, just be vigilant. It's just that most of us can't afford to outsource our vigilance, and the system works better for those who can.
    - JoshTriplett 14y ago
      Exactly. And given the relative difficulty of undoing bad legislation versus stopping it from passing (and even stopping it often takes a huge effort), whoever can afford the most persistence wins, by just waiting for the other side to slip up once.
    - ghubbard 14y ago
      But you can afford to outsource your representation?
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        There the cost structure is reversed: most of us can't afford to insource our representation -- that costs millions of dollars in campaign funds.
  - r00fus 14y ago
    > This isn't the best system, obviously, but it does work There is no question the system works - it's the biggest most powerful such in the world, possibly in all of known history. The question is for whom [1] it works - the answer may depress you. [1] hint: someone in the know once said: "corporations are people, my friend"
zrail 14y ago
Well, that was fast.
tptacek 14y ago
He didn't "scuttle" it. CNet saw draft language being circulated among Senators and reported on it. Leahy issued a clarification, saying that he didn't support the draft language. Leahy's own language eliminates the 180-day rule for warrantless access to email, which is a huge step forward for email privacy. Unless Leahy is directly lying in his statement, what CNet's reporter did was to play "gotcha" with draft senate language. While this may make us feel better, like we all played a role in ensuring that a terrible bill wasn't passed, what it really does is ensure that senators and their staffs will work even harder to make sure we don't see draft bill language until it is more or less a fait accompli and the only two outcomes are "pass" or "discard". Patrick Leahy has one of the better reputations in the whole senate on civil liberties issues (check out the ACLU scorecard). But yeah, let's definitely eat our own to ensure ideological purity. That worked super well for the Tea Party.
- IbJacked 14y ago
  But, as I understand it, the draft language came from Leahy. There was immediate backlash so now he's distancing himself from it.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Then Leahy is directly lying in his statement, which says he never supported that language. The language CNet reported on is also out of character for Leahy, and Leahy has ECPA amendment language ready that kills the 180-day rule for email. It doesn't add up.
    - swohns 14y ago
      This does seem remarkably out of character for Leahy, perhaps the draft language was from the the committee general. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt since he is such a Batman supporter.
      - yen223 14y ago
        Based on the movies, I would think that a Batman supporter would be in favour of a warrantless surveillance bill.
adventured 14y ago
Cockroaches scatter when you shine light on them.
jdavid 14y ago
As the Internet we need to do two things, one start getting our sorry little asses in congress to stop this stuff where it starts. Two, build better technology that is not such an easy target. If individual keys were required to decrypt messages, then it's hard to take the data without your permission because cryptography prevents that. This might be a good enough reason to switch off of email, especially email like gmail.
- tptacek 14y ago
  As EFF reports, large email providers (one assumes this includes GMail) have a practice of demanding warrants for email, even though the FBI is in some circumstances technically entitled to email with just a subpoena. The FBI apparently (as far as we know) hasn't litigated any of these cases, and has simply obtained warrants. It doesn't seem unlikely that we're converging in the short term on a legal terrain where all access by law enforcement to email is going to require a warrant.

82 points by jsm386 14y ago

swohns 14y ago

Scary wasn't disclosed until today, it was scheduled for a vote this week.

anigbrowl 14y ago
It's a better story when there's a looming deadline. A story about something that doesn't seem urgent isn't going to get many eyeballs.
dromidas 14y ago
Even more scary was that it was a bill originally advertised as improving email security and then was quietly rewritten to damaging email security (but then wasn't advertised that it did a 180). Hurray for the internet. Hard to screw people over by this shady business these days.
ajross 14y ago
Sadly this is the way non-partisan issues are legislated in the US system. But the system worked -- the vote was scheduled, the relevant interest groups noticed, the media reported it, the people contacted their representatives and the bill was pulled. We win. Note also that "the vote" was a committee vote. There were plenty of other chances to stop this. This isn't the best system, obviously, but it does work. So don't despair, just be vigilant.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  This isn't the best system, obviously, but it does work. So don't despair, just be vigilant. It's just that most of us can't afford to outsource our vigilance, and the system works better for those who can.
  - JoshTriplett 14y ago
    Exactly. And given the relative difficulty of undoing bad legislation versus stopping it from passing (and even stopping it often takes a huge effort), whoever can afford the most persistence wins, by just waiting for the other side to slip up once.
  - ghubbard 14y ago
    But you can afford to outsource your representation?
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      There the cost structure is reversed: most of us can't afford to insource our representation -- that costs millions of dollars in campaign funds.
- r00fus 14y ago
  > This isn't the best system, obviously, but it does work There is no question the system works - it's the biggest most powerful such in the world, possibly in all of known history. The question is for whom [1] it works - the answer may depress you. [1] hint: someone in the know once said: "corporations are people, my friend"

zrail 14y ago

Well, that was fast.

tptacek 14y ago

He didn't "scuttle" it. CNet saw draft language being circulated among Senators and reported on it. Leahy issued a clarification, saying that he didn't support the draft language. Leahy's own language eliminates the 180-day rule for warrantless access to email, which is a huge step forward for email privacy. Unless Leahy is directly lying in his statement, what CNet's reporter did was to play "gotcha" with draft senate language. While this may make us feel better, like we all played a role in ensuring that a terrible bill wasn't passed, what it really does is ensure that senators and their staffs will work even harder to make sure we don't see draft bill language until it is more or less a fait accompli and the only two outcomes are "pass" or "discard". Patrick Leahy has one of the better reputations in the whole senate on civil liberties issues (check out the ACLU scorecard). But yeah, let's definitely eat our own to ensure ideological purity. That worked super well for the Tea Party.

IbJacked 14y ago
But, as I understand it, the draft language came from Leahy. There was immediate backlash so now he's distancing himself from it.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Then Leahy is directly lying in his statement, which says he never supported that language. The language CNet reported on is also out of character for Leahy, and Leahy has ECPA amendment language ready that kills the 180-day rule for email. It doesn't add up.
  - swohns 14y ago
    This does seem remarkably out of character for Leahy, perhaps the draft language was from the the committee general. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt since he is such a Batman supporter.
    - yen223 14y ago
      Based on the movies, I would think that a Batman supporter would be in favour of a warrantless surveillance bill.

adventured 14y ago

Cockroaches scatter when you shine light on them.

jdavid 14y ago

As the Internet we need to do two things, one start getting our sorry little asses in congress to stop this stuff where it starts. Two, build better technology that is not such an easy target. If individual keys were required to decrypt messages, then it's hard to take the data without your permission because cryptography prevents that. This might be a good enough reason to switch off of email, especially email like gmail.

tptacek 14y ago
As EFF reports, large email providers (one assumes this includes GMail) have a practice of demanding warrants for email, even though the FBI is in some circumstances technically entitled to email with just a subpoena. The FBI apparently (as far as we know) hasn't litigated any of these cases, and has simply obtained warrants. It doesn't seem unlikely that we're converging in the short term on a legal terrain where all access by law enforcement to email is going to require a warrant.