Senators push to reform Electronic Privacy Communications Act

[2FA]

Finally some privacy reform is likely to happen here in the US.

 

Quote

Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Pat Leahy (D-VT) introduced the ECPA Modernization Act, as well as the Email Privacy Act, two bills meant to update and reform the three-decades-old Electronic Privacy Communications Act.

Quote

The Email Privacy Act would require the government to go before a judge to ask for a search warrant based on probable cause whenever it seeks to obtain not just emails, but also photos and texts held by technology companies.

Quote

The Email Privacy Act would require the government to go before a judge to ask for a search warrant based on probable cause whenever it seeks to obtain not just emails, but also photos and texts held by technology companies.

• requiring a warrant for geo-location data requests
• requiring specific and articulable facts for why a gag order is necessary
• requiring specific and articulable facts for why cell site simulator data was “material” to the investigation

 

Here's the unfortunate part about these bills:

Quote

The ECPA Modernization Act doesn’t have any impact on the Wiretap Act and FISA, so any surveillance methods allowed by those two bills will still be available to law enforcement if the ECPA Modernization Act passes. FISA will expire by the end of the year, which could be a good opportunity to fix some of its biggest privacy issues, too.

 

There goes the whole point out the window. I'm not too familiar with the 1983 law these are replacing but it seems like it doesn't impact abilities to collect data whatsoever except maybe in specific cases and the use of stingrays.

 

 

Sauce: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/senators-reform-ecpa-two-bills,35107.html

Edited July 28, 2017 by DeadEyePsycho
Added more to opinion

[ChineseChef]

20 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

-snip- but it seems like it doesn't impact abilities to collect data whatsoever except maybe in specific cases and the use of stingrays.-snip-

This is probably why they are doing it.  The PR sounds good, but it doesn't actually have any teeth.

[Trik'Stari]

Something something 1984.

 

Something something Brave New World.

[mr moose]

 

What sad state of affairs you're in when you can't distinguish between a legitimate law that is good for the community and one that is hiding something nasty.

It means either the professionals you rely on to decipher the implications of said bill can't be trusted,  the government can't be trusted or everyone is suffering from some sort of ongoing paranoia. Or varying combinations of all three.

 

 

[2FA]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

What sad state of affairs you're in when you can't distinguish between a legitimate law that is good for the community and one that is hiding something nasty.

It means either the professionals you rely on to decipher the implications of said bill can't be trusted,  the government can't be trusted or everyone is suffering from some sort of ongoing paranoia. Or varying combinations of all three.

 

 

It's not that these two bills are bad, it's that they don't affect existing mass data collection laws.

[mr moose]

Just now, DeadEyePsycho said:

It's not that these two bills are bad, it's that they don't affect existing mass data collection laws.

If the laws you are referring to are the wiretap laws then it is a good thing they don't change, that law is what makes it illegal for anyone to listen to a communication via a listening device without a court order or explicit approval from one of the parties with the involvement of police,  Technically it makes cell tower interceptors illegal (but your government is above the law anyway right). 

 

FISA is supposed to not be effective on home soil (but again even if the law was amended your government would probably ignore it anyway).

 

But that still doesn't change what I said, the fact you claim the whole point goes out the window and others have chalked it up to "PR" means exactly what I said still rings true.

[2FA]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

If the laws you are referring to are the wiretap laws then it is a good thing they don't change, that law is what makes it illegal for anyone to listen to a communication via a listening device without a court order or explicit approval from one of the parties with the involvement of police,  Technically it makes cell tower interceptors illegal (but your government is above the law anyway right). 

 

FISA is supposed to not be effective on home soil (but again even if the law was amended your government would probably ignore it anyway).

 

But that still doesn't change what I said, the fact you claim the whole point goes out the window and others have chalked it up to "PR" means exactly what I said still rings true.

That doesn't make it bad though. FISA is the law that most care about in regards to privacy, the fact that it's interpretation gets twisted into allowing mass surveillance on Americans on home soil. The NSA monitors just about all outbound and inbound traffic, including those of US citizens because they don't discriminate even though they are supposed to.

 

These two laws are helpful for individual cases of targeted surveillance, but I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about FISA.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

That doesn't make it bad though.

doesn't make what bad?

 

[BuckGup]

Wow a law is in place. Hasn't stop the government before

[2FA]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

doesn't make what bad?

 

Your premise was that these bills are possibly untrustworthy or along those lines.

 

2 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Wow a law is in place. Hasn't stop the government before

Huh?

[BuckGup]

Just now, DeadEyePsycho said:

Your premise was that these bills are possibly untrustworthy or along those lines.

 

Huh?

The government doesn't always follow it's own rules

[2FA]

Just now, BuckGup said:

The government doesn't always follow it's own rules

Ahhh, okay. Your post didn't make sense without context.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Your premise was that these bills are possibly untrustworthy or along those lines.

 

Huh?

no, my premise was that regardless of how good or bad a bill might be, your country is in such a poor state that the people respond with fear, paranoia, and skepticism regardless.  

 

 

[2FA]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

no, my premise was that regardless of how good or bad a bill might be, your country is in such a poor state that the people respond with fear, paranoia, and skepticism regardless.  

 

 

Welcome to 2017 basically?

[mr moose]

Just now, DeadEyePsycho said:

Welcome to 2017 basically?

2017 for the USA and UK at least,  we are not far behind,  say 2015 maybe.

 

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

2017 for the USA and UK at least,  we are not far behind,  say 2015 maybe.

 

Aren't you from Australia? The country which literally said that the laws of Australia trumps the laws of mathematics, when someone said their anti-strong encryption laws as unfeasible? 

[mr moose]

Just now, LAwLz said:

Aren't you from Australia? The country which literally said that the laws of Australia trumps the laws of mathematics, when someone said their anti-strong encryption laws as unfeasible? 

The problem with internet forums and youtubers is that it's easy to take what was said and misrepresent it.  Turnbull (PM)  never said that the laws of math could be changed, he said that the laws of Australia trump them, meaning if you can't make it work mathematically then he will make it illegal.   

 

What he said was true, just not what anyone wants to hear.

 

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

The problem with internet forums and youtubers is that it's easy to take what was said and misrepresent it.  Turnbull (PM)  never said that the laws of math could be changed, he said that the laws of Australia trump them, meaning if you can't make it work mathematically then he will make it illegal.   

 

What he said was true, just not what anyone wants to hear.

 

That doesn't change that this whole move by various governments to weaken encryption is a huuuuuuuuuuge issue, or that his comment is dumb regardless because encryption is synonymous with security in the online world.

 

You wouldn't outlaw the ability to lock your doors would you? To own a safe that's unfeasible to break into?

 

Why would you outlaw the same thing for your online home?

[Prysin]

18 hours ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Finally some privacy reform is likely to happen here in the US.

 

 

Here's the unfortunate part about these bills:

 

There goes the whole point out the window. I'm not too familiar with the 1983 law these are replacing but it seems like it doesn't impact abilities to collect data whatsoever except maybe in specific cases and the use of stingrays.

 

 

Sauce: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/senators-reform-ecpa-two-bills,35107.html

basically means; NSA keeps doing what its doing, but police and the FBI cannot screw you over as easily as before.

 

FBI can always abuse the Obama "intelligence sharing" policy, aka just ask one of the 16 other intelligence gathering agencies to let them in the know.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

That doesn't change that this whole move by various governments to weaken encryption is a huuuuuuuuuuge issue, or that his comment is dumb regardless because encryption is synonymous with security in the online world.

 

You wouldn't outlaw the ability to lock your doors would you? To own a safe that's unfeasible to break into?

 

Why would you outlaw the same thing for your online home?

I never said otherwise.  But if you think his comment is dumb, it is only becasue you recgonise what he said is true and you understand that he doesn't believe the laws of math can be changed.