U.S. House Unanimously Passes Bill Requiring Warrants For All Electronic Communications Requests From Government

Status
Not open for further replies.

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
Let's just hope the senate does not turn it into a joke with loopholes after loopholes.

still wish notification was required as well. they notify you with a copy of the warrant when searching your house or property but no such courtesy online. even after they have the data if nothing else. i understand that they fear it being deleted but once they have it, no reason not to give a heads up.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

If they notify the suspects as soon as they have the data, the suspects can spread the word to their accomplices who are still in the wild to clean up evidence. To avoid interfering with the investigation, notification would ideally need to be deferred until the investigation has gone as far as it could go through electronic records.

Think organized crime: when police requests warrants for those, they usually coordinate strikes across dozens of locations to prevent accomplices and suspects from alerting each other and have a head-start on evidence destruction.

Or think wiretaps: you are rarely told about the wiretap until the evidence gathered through it is presented in court since telling before the investigation would make you that much warier of divulging any further information through those means and prevent investigators from getting that information.
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
the cat and mouse game is always fun ain't it :)

a question would be how long does stuff stay on the server after you personally delete it. rarely does "deleting" an email actually remove it from the email server. profiles and such on social media are even worse. they hold onto data even after an account is deleted by the user. the bill points specifically to data that is over 6 months old (newer stuff already needs a warrant). somehow i think this access probably includes stuff the user already feels is gone in many cases
 

vudtmere

Reputable
Dec 7, 2015
13
0
4,510
0
Generally if it passes through then it bodes bad news for individual liberty which has been ebbed away since this country was founded. Everyone in this country is so terrified of imagined horrors that they willingly give up their liberty.

Protect me from drugs
Protect me from criminals sending emails
Protect me from terrorists

Often we need protected from the government more than anything else. The economy is in shambles, we are enslaved to debt, and we create a new terrorist organization on a weekly basis all while doing missile simulations on the coasts of Asia. These government use each other to scare their citizenry into thinking an attack from a major country is imminent. It isn't going to happen. You're more likely to be killed by the police than a terrorist. And you're more likely to starve from unemployment than eat bad vegetables from an unregulated farmer.
 


That's not a fair across the board comparison. It doesn't take a Sherlock to understand that your risk of getting shot by police is many times higher if you are a criminal and live a criminal lifestyle. It goes up even higher if you point your gun at a cop or do not obey his commands. It is extremely low if you live a normal law abiding life. That's just common sense...no statistics needed (like the majority of those shot by cops have a criminal record).

On the flip side, you are supposed to go to a corner cafe in Paris, an airport in Brussels, or a government building in San Bernardino and not have to worry about getting blown up or shot up by terrorists because the government is supposed to be protecting us from armed terrorists (especially where fully automatic firearms are supposedly banned by the federal government powers-to-be).

 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador


did you read the release? this law is actually a good one adding the requirement for a warrant when one was not required before. this is actually a good thing, unlike the other recent laws.

but i do agree, that we have let an imagined fear of "bad guys" doing all kinds of bad things erode our rights to the point they are almost not there anymore. i am not willing to give up my privacy and ability to protect myself online, simply so that someone else can't also.

but in the end this is a good law that hopefully gets the same treatment in the senate and passes through intact. but somehow i doubt it as the senate really seems to hate the individual right now. business can do no wrong, but the individual should be feared and watched very very closely.
 
The GOP has controlled the House for what 7 years and now the Senate this year. I'm surprised they passed anything that didn't cut our healthcare or cut support the aged and sick, or gave a big tax cut to the top 1%. 7 Years and no jobs bill unless you want to work on a pipeline. Let’s see what the Senate does next with the looney toons in control all bets are off.
 

vudtmere

Reputable
Dec 7, 2015
13
0
4,510
0


I believe it is a completely fair across the board comparison as an innocent can fully expect a terrorist attack against their life and property, but should they expect one from one from those sworn to protect and serve? I am not a utilitarian. One wrongful death from the police does not justify any number of good acts. Government agencies including police forces everywhere have gravely overstepped their moral boundaries. Even the mere harassment generated by patrol officers on a daily basis warrants the public's realization that they are a large menace to society. Perhaps, even more so than the uneducated, poor, and deranged lunatics that live thousands of miles beyond our boarders. Lunatics who have absolutely no means to do us any harm what-so-ever until our good friend's in blue assist the government in extorting our tax dollars that are used to ship weapons overseas to them.

There is a connection and the police are the arm of the state. No matter there 'intentions' they do the will of their political masters. They can not plead innocence until this ends.
 

Darkk

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2003
615
0
18,980
0
The biggest reason is give feds the legal reason to investigate you so it'll be admissible in court. Too many cases lately gotten thrown out due to improper documentation and scope of the investigation.
 

targetdrone

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2012
304
2
18,785
0
The GOP has controlled the House for what 7 years and now the Senate this year. I'm surprised they passed anything that didn't cut our healthcare or cut support the aged and sick, or gave a big tax cut to the top 1%. 7 Years and no jobs bill unless you want to work on a pipeline. Let’s see what the Senate does next with the looney toons in control all bets are off.
The GOP has done Obama's bidding for the past 7 years. Every last one of them needs to be sent to the soup line in November.

 

Jarmo

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2009
136
0
18,680
0
So.. if this passes..

They'll then have to ask warrant for following communications of everybody in the world?
Will one big blanket warrant for "everybody" do?
 

iamthesgt

Honorable
Jun 13, 2013
3
0
10,510
0
> because the government is supposed to be protecting us from armed terrorists (especially where fully automatic firearms are supposedly banned by the federal government powers-to-be).

Except fully automatic firearms aren't banned, just difficult to get, and there's not proof terrorists have used full auto weapons, though it appears the SB ones tries
 

RedJaron

Splendid
Moderator

False. The democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House for 2009 and 2010, which is what allowed them to ram through bills without any kind of discussion, feedback, or debate. Republicans got the majority in the House in the 2010 election.

It's a bad idea to paint with a broad brush ( such as "all Republicans are religious zealots" or "all Democrats are fascist whack-jobs" ) because blanket statements are easy to prove wrong. Both sides have their share of idiots and morons, and both have a number of decent people too. That said, complaining about a job bill, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the topic at hand of warrants and digital personal info.

I remind you all that talking politics on an Internet forum rarely stays civil for long. Normally we don't allow it for exactly that reason, but, like the FBI vs Apple news threads, it's a tangential topic and is somewhat relevant here. And like before, we're granting some leniency here. I give the same warning as last time: do not hang yourself with the extra rope you're given. Insults, name-calling, profanity, and personal attacks are still not tolerated and will be moderated harshly.
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
the fact that the bill passed unanimously (meaning ALL reps and dems voted in favor) should also show to many that this is less a political issue and more of an issue of what it means to be an american to the members of the house. they disagree on almost everything but in this case they stood united.

perhaps some of the finger pointing is misguided in this case considering this :)
 


Sorry, so they have or will have controlled the house for 6 years by the end of this year, my bad.
 


It is very unusual a bill passing either house unanimously with the deep divides that are apparent, this will make the Senate vote very interesting.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
The GOP has controlled the House for what 7 years and now the Senate this year. I'm surprised they passed anything that didn't cut our healthcare or cut support the aged and sick, or gave a big tax cut to the top 1%. 7 Years and no jobs bill unless you want to work on a pipeline. Let’s see what the Senate does next with the looney toons in control all bets are off.
it's only the governments job to create jobs in marxist/communist nations, you will need to show identification and travel permission papers from your government in order to attend your job also. this is the USA, not the CCCP/USSR but many thanks to people such as you for bringing about the marxating of USSRofA in removing the bill of rights in the 4th amendment and restoring the well versed practices of King George lll of England
...Most importantly, Madison and Jefferson did not believe in the Divine Right of Kings. Today, Washington exercises power much as British royalty did in days of old. Prosecution and execution of people without due process is an example.

American revolutionaries did not accept the British Empire’s mercantilism, usurious taxation and restrictions on civic life. The American colonists suffered under a primitive police state that was restrained only by the limits of technology at that time.

When the colonists were fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, arrested and taxed without representation in parliament, they revolted against the tyrant King, George the Third. The Bill of Rights was written with recent abuses of the British Empire freshly in mind and was designed to prevent a repetition of these same abuses in the new country called the United States.

The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 by 56 influential and powerful men. Labeled as conspirators and traitors (terrorists in today’s lingo), they were charged with treason, a capital offense. Of the 56 signers, 9 died during the Revolution, 5 were captured by British soldiers, 18 had their homes looted and burnt, 2 were wounded in battle and 2 lost sons during the Revolutionary War.

Today, few Americans know what the Bill of Rights is, and citizens who concern themselves with it are viewed with suspicion by agencies in Washington that George Washington, Madison and Jefferson could not have envisioned. ......[Quote/]
read some of the rest to get some idea of context if you have further need, taken from:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/updated-bill-rights

because i do not feel the need to write what some one else most likely wrote and explained much faster, easier, and simpler than i would.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
sorry i did not double post don't know how it repeated, came back cuz i forgot to include this part;
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, UPDATED
"Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Translation:
The government, its agents, contractors, peace officers and military will not confiscate, copy, disrupt, monitor, record, spy on, surveil, search, seize, track or video the archives, art, banking records, books, briefcases, cables, cassettes, cell phones, cell phone towers, cloud storage, computer drives, credit card receipts, crypto currency wallets, deliveries, desk tops, diaries, drawings, electric consumption, employment records, Facebook pages, financial records, files, folders, hard discs, health records, journals, hand-written letters, Internet activity, kindles, laptops, library records, license plates, luggage, magazine subscriptions, medical records, packages, papers, pockets, political activity, private conversations, purses, religious texts, social media, spread sheets, tapes, telegrams, telephone records, television usage, texts, thumb drives, travel histories, Twitter accounts, wifi, word documents, automobile, home, office, business, private property, rental space…without just probable cause that spells out the specific reason and specific person or thing to be exempted from this rule. The reason must be clearly stated to the accused and no fishing expeditions are permitted. This rule will apply equally regardless of race, color, appearance, dress or form of speech.
The government will not detain, stop, frisk, interrogate, delay, strip search, scan, fingerprint, iris scan or palm scan any person without specific probable cause. Government will not, without probable cause, impede the movement of people, create black-lists, no-fly lists and watch lists.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from touching you or placing you under surveillance or entering your property without probable cause and even then, only with a court-sanctioned warrant. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has been all but eviscerated in recent years by court rulings and government programs that sanction all manner of intrusions, including giving police carte blanche authority to break into homes or apartments without a warrant, conduct roadside strip searches, and generally manhandle any person in manner they see fit. Moreover, in the so-called name of national security, intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency now have the ability to conduct mass unwarranted electronic intrusions into the personal and private transactions of all Americans, including phone, mail, computer and medical records."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY