Warrantless E-mail Access for Feds Shelved

[zakislam]

Bill amended to remove privacy concerns for American internet users.

Warrantless E-mail Access for Feds Shelved : Read more

 

[Kami3k]

Pff, just like every career politician he is just protecting his a$$.

*cough* Term limits *cough*

 

[edogawa]

Great news. That's just an invasion of privacy.

 

[candrwhite]

It's funny, I didn't read where he said 'Yes, I tried to screw over the country, the entire internet freaked out, and now... let's just ignore those things and know that I'm all about citizen's privacy'.

 

[freggo]

Makes you wonder if his family's email addresses, and those of other members of Congress, would be excluded.

 

[j2j663]

Politicians like this disgust me, oh wait, thats all of them.

 

[Guest]

What it makes me wonder, is what else is in the bill? Has anyone read the [assumed] several-hundred pages of legalese?

 

[Guest]

Wish that the same could be said of the "Patriot Act" which created a hugely expensive underground secretive government bureaucracy that monitors every activity of every American (data collecting). Yet, it hasn't stopped or spotlighted any terrorist activity since passage back in 2001.

 

[cirdecus]

Yep, another democrat with a strong arm for government control and regulation

 

[thecolorblue]

they're already doing it anyway, this was just to cover the govt's ass for what it is ALREADY DOING.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/23/more_secrets_on_growing_state_surveillance

Watch that link!!!!!

 

[cirdecus]

next we'll have government ran DNS servers

 

[Marcus52]

A good place for keeping up with issues like this:

https://www.eff.org/

There are others, too. (Thanks for the link thecolorblue)

 

[koga73]

Do yourself a favor and get your own email server that you control.
My server is in my house so the only way the feds could read my emails is if they raided my house and took my server... which is also encrypted. I also use my server for DNS and use OpenDNS.

 

[Guest]

Since this is another act of the government intruding on our liberty, it is funny how they don't mention in the article that this is a democrat proposing this. If it would have been a republican, they would have said so and added what state he was from.

 

[millerm84]

[citation][nom]madethisup[/nom]Since this is another act of the government intruding on our liberty, it is funny how they don't mention in the article that this is a democrat proposing this. If it would have been a republican, they would have said so and added what state he was from.[/citation]


If you checked the previous article you would have noticed that his party affiliation is stated. If you understood how the US government worked you would know that the head of any committee is usually a member of that house's controlling party. So, committee heads in the Senate will be democrats while those in the house will be republicans in the current Congress. If I had to guess it was an oversight on the part of Tom's, but his party affiliation was stated in the original article and if you're, as I have assumed, an American citizen you should be able to determine his party affiliation based on the facts presented in the article. The omission of his state is present in both articles but that fact doesn't carry the same weight as his party affiliation. None the less, this isn't party bias as you imply; it's the author assuming you're following the story.