Skip to main content

US Senate quietly penciling in new government authority to

At least if Senator Patrick Leahy gets his way.

Here's the set of amendments the Senator is set to introduce to a bill that was widely touted as improving our rights to cyber-privacy:
✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.
By the way, the current text of the bill defines the agencies that will acquire the power to access your emails, your Facebook accounts, your Twitter account, your documents stored with any online back-up provider:
. . . any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency...
Who's included?  Here's a partial list:
Federal ReserveFederal Trade CommissionFederal Maritime CommissionPostal Regulatory CommissionNational Labor Relations BoardMine Enforcement Safety and Health Review CommissionOSHASecurities and Exchange CommissionGeneral Accounting OfficeUS Department of EducationSocial Security AdministrationFederal Communications Commission. . . and the list goes on and on and on like the Energizer Bunny . . .
This is WAY beyond any arguments about national security, folks.

What does the Postal Regulatory Commission or the US Department of Education have to do with protecting me from . . . anyone.

The slippery slope has gone from national security to the ease with which government prosecutions can be carried on for non-security related issues.

Wonderful.

But, of course, our own Congressional delegation, as well as our own local supporters of President Obama's anti-civil liberties agenda, will roll right over on this one, too.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve
Leahy says this is incorrect now. This is way over the top. Even for the vast majority is sheeple.
tom said…
That's because he changed his mind in response to the public outrage over his proposed amendments. NOT because he wasn't planning to try what Steve blogged about.

If anyone is over the top, it is Leahy and his statist cronies in both incumbent parties who are trying to destroy the Internet as we knew it
tom said…
They're at it again. This time it's Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) who is about to propose a set of amendments even worse than Leahy's.

and BTW, your "recent comments" jackson appears to be broken.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...