|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
The Daily Signal
Lawmakers Want
Big Brother to Get a Warrant Before Looking in Your Inbox
Philip Wegmann
March 22, 2016
If the Email Privacy Act becomes law, the inboxes of millions of
Americans will get a security update overnight.
The bill would prohibit the government from accessing private email
accounts without a warrant.
But civil rights and law enforcement advocates remain at odds over the
legislation. Proponents say the bill secures privacy rights online
while opponents complain it unfairly privileges digital information.
At issue is the 1986 Electronic Communications Act. Passed by Congress
before most Americans went online, that law considers emails older than
180 days abandoned and makes them subject to search.
To access those emails, government agencies don’t need a warrant. They
only need to ask for the messages from Internet service providers.
In the online age, Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., says, the antiquated law
provides ample opportunity for abuse.
“Government agencies,” Yoder told The Daily Signal, “have enjoyed the
ability to rifle through innocent Americans’ emails looking for
evidence of both civil and criminal penalties.”
Cosponsored by Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., the legislation would expand
Fourth Amendment privacy protections for personal papers to digital
files.
Polis described current laws as outdated and “trapped in a decade where
dial-up Internet was standard.”
The overdue update has left Americans’ inboxes in danger, he wrote, of
“being warrantlessly [sic] searched by government agencies.”
And most in the House appear to agree with that sentiment. Already, 312
representatives have signed up to cosponsor the legislation, making it
the most popular bill in Congress.
But the bill repeatedly has failed to advance out of the Judiciary
Committee since it’s introduction in 2012. That could change in April.
Two aides told The Daily Signal that Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.,
plans to “swiftly move” the bill through committee.
Two digital goliaths, Google and Yahoo, have given their stamp of
approval. Some privacy groups also have deployed their bandwidth to
lobby the committee for a vote.
Still, some law enforcement officials say the bill should stay offline.
They complain it would place government agents at a disadvantage by
creating a new warrant requirement that would tip off criminals and
“privilege” digital evidence.
Joshua Zive, general counsel for the FBI Agents Association, told The
Daily Signal that the bill would require law enforcement “to show their
cards” by providing extra notice.
In addition to conducting the search, Zive said, law enforcement would
be required to detail the reasons for their investigation to Internet
providers and the person of interest. That’s a marked departure from
the current standard, he said.
“This notice requirement doesn’t have to be provided for the vast
majority of car, home, and safety-deposit searches,” he said. But under
the Email Privacy Act, “everything that’s electronic would get
this—it’s a massive universe of things.”
If the bill becomes law and Internet companies aren’t compelled to turn
over documents in a timely manor, Zive envisions a world where
“electronic devices could become almost impenetrable safe houses for
evidence, like nothing in the physical world.”
Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology,
rejects that reasoning.
In an interview with The Daily Signal, Nojeim said that, with
permission from a judge, law enforcement already can delay notice of a
search to keep an investigation secret.
But eventually, government agencies “still have to disclose” the
details of a search.
“In the physical world, citizens have a sense of why police are there
[serving a search warrant,]” he said, adding:
We want that same rule in the virtual world. This idea that warrants
should be served without notice is very dangerous to liberty.
As Americans increase their digital footprint, he argues that permanent
constitutional safeguards ought to extend to a country increasingly
becoming more and more online.
“Nowadays, your whole life can be lived online,” Nojeim said. “It makes
sense to transfer the same protection you enjoy in the physical world
to the virtual world.”
Read this and other articles at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
