Congress, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Society

Democrats Introduce Privacy Bill Before Election . . . Obama Administration Reportedly Opposes Privacy Protections After Election

Many civil libertarians refused to vote for President Barack Obama given his dismal record in the expansion of the security state, surveillance law, and assertions of unchecked executive power. The Administration went into radio silence on such issues during the campaign in an effort to win back liberals (as they did on medical marijuana) only to announce after the election that they would resume the same policies. The Democratic leadership has shown the same duplicity on civil liberties for years — including hiding knowledge of the Bush torture program and surveillance programs as well as blocking any meaningful investigations into those alleged crimes. Now, some Democrats have reportedly put that hypocrisy on public display again. Senator Patrick Leahy introduced the bill which, as originally written, required warrants for the reading of emails and was heralded by Democrats during the campaign as their showing of fealty to privacy and civil liberties. The Justice Department then took the bill and flipped it to serve as a sweeping denial of privacy rights . . . and some Senators are pushing on passage now that the election is over. The bill includes warrantless access to university email systems.

The re-written bill now authorizes warrantless access to Americans’ e-mail for over 22 federal agencies with only a subpoena and no probable cause. State and local agencies will have access to email system, including university emails. Internet providers will have to give notice if they are thinking of informing customers of access given to such agencies. Such notification can be postponed by up to 360 days. While not speaking for his Democratic colleagues, Leahy says that he does not support some of the exceptions. Leahy was once an ally for civil libertarians but is now viewed with great suspicion given his authorship of the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act as well as the Protect IP Act. An article in The New Republic concluded Leahy’s work on the Patriot Act “appears to have made the bill less protective of civil liberties.” He also inserted controversial portions of the Patriot Act. Leahy however insists that he will oppose rollbacks. Yet, the Justice Department has objected to protections in the bill according to reports and some Senators are pushing for the restrictive version of the bill. Leahy’s staff says that he will push a draft closer to the original in committee. [Update: CNET is standing by its story
and says that Leahy only backdown after criticism following its story and that Leahy is abandoning amendments of his own making].

There is no denial of the opposition to the privacy protections by the Administration.

However, the Obama Administration is quoted as objecting that privacy protections would have an “adverse impact” on national security investigations. Democratic members doing the bidding of the Administration will find likely allies in the GOP, including Senator Chuck Grassley who has warned about the dangers of too much privacy.

The control of the security establishment over both White House and Congress appears now completely unchecked and unabashed. After securing reelection, President Obama wasted no time in returning to his prior record of disregarding privacy and civil liberties concerns. Once again, both the media and liberals are muted in any response when the same re-writing of the bill would have produced outcries under the Bush Administration. Of course, Obama can certainly point out that liberals should have had no illusions. On torture, military tribunals, surveillance, undeclared wars, and other issues, Obama made himself painfully clear. His campaign was one of personality over principle and only the personality remains.

[UPDATE: after the CNET story gained national attention, Leahy’s people went into full action in denying that Leahy supports warrantless access to email communications. However, there is still no denial of the quoted Administration officials opposing the privacy protections. Moreover, there is confirmation that a number of versions — including some with these exceptions to the warrant requirement — are being circulated. The bill can be changed in Committee or on the floor. Likewise, if the civil liberties community rallies to oppose warrantless searches, the Administration could seek to kill the bill or gut the provision to leave the status quo.]

Source: CNET

127 thoughts on “Democrats Introduce Privacy Bill Before Election . . . Obama Administration Reportedly Opposes Privacy Protections After Election”

  1. I was glad to read that Leahy has not gone over to the dark side as that side is top-heavy as it is.

    However, as it now stands any email left on a server over 6 months is considered abandoned and a federal prosecutor can issue a warrant.
    Google, Yahoo, even Facebook etc. fall under the definition of server.

    In other words it is, as ap continually reminds us, already bad out there. The Germany/Hitler/early ’30’s analogy is apropos.

  3. Yes, nick, twitter is the best format for breaking news. No doubt.

    Accuracy depends on which people you choose to follow, or ymmv…
    twitter tells me when JT puts up a new post!

  5. Pingback: Democrats Introduce Privacy Bill Before Election . . . Obama Administration Changes Bill To Strip Away Privacy After Election ← FREEDOM BUNKER

  6. It’s times like this the option to write in a candidate provides great personal satisfaction.

  8. shano, Thanks, hope you’re correct. Social media has become the real check and balances in our govt. It’s very difficult now to do nasty things in the middle of the night w/o it being exposed.

  10. ” Electronic Communications Privacy Act: Patrick Leahy Hits Back At Report That Legislation Would Decrease Americans’ Privacy”

    The Huffington Post | By Adam Goldberg Posted: 11/20/2012 4:03 pm EST Updated: 11/20/2012 4:03 pm EST

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/electronic-communications-privacy-act-patrick-leahy_n_2166759.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

    “”Senator Leahy is a privacy guy and supports strong privacy laws,” said Jessica Brady, a Leahy spokeswoman. “This bill is almost 30 years old and needs to be updated to address email. But this doesn’t mean warrantless searches of email will be in it. It won’t. Whatever that was is not the posture of the committee,” she continued, referring to language in the CNET report.

    Brady said that Leahy’s bill would require a warrant to search email and would include a provision requiring people to be notified if such a search had occurred.

    The original ECPA bill was passed in 1986, an era far removed from today’s digital landscape. The new version of the legislation is up for a vote in committee next week, reports The Verge.

    Per RT, the reported loosening of privacy protections is connected to concerns raised by the National Sheriffs’ Association and the National District Attorneys’ Association. The organizations reportedly asked lawmakers to “reconsider acting” on a previous version of the bill pending a “review of its impact on law enforcement investigations.”

    McCullagh lists multiple federal agencies that would have “civil subpoena authority” to access digital correspondence under the tweaked legislation. He reports that these agencies would include, among others, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Forbes reached out to an unnamed Senate Judiciary aide who was equally dismissive of the charges related to privacy violations. “Senator Leahy does not support broad carve outs for warrantless searches of email content,” the aide told Forbes. “He remains committed to upholding privacy laws and updating the outdated Electronic Privacy Communications Act.””

  11. “[President Obama’s] campaign was one of personality over principle and only the personality remains.” — Jonathan Turley

    Unfortunately for the United States of America, the other (and even further) right wing of the Corporate Oligarchy Party ran a candidate without either a personality or a principle, which only resulted in the continuance in office of the Barack Obama personality: one without any principle but power for the sake of the Apartheid Zionist Entity and the 1% , neither of which voted for him.

  12. Wow. You guys are paranoid. OUR government would NEVER do anything that was not in our best interest. Especially under a democratic regime.

  14. I called Leahy’s office after sending him this blog article and he says he doesnt agree with your depiction. Please publish the Bill and the amendments and the Who, What, Where, Why and When here.

  16. nick, Did think you would be for Stein with all her PC and gun control positions.

  17. nick, I am not looking it up again but if I remember it was around 1 %. I thought he would do better in the west. He and Jill Stein were both good candidates. The libertarian candidates made a difference in 9 congressional races but especially in the Mourdock and Aken ones.

  18. SWM, No remorse, I made one of my many quixotic picks w/ Johnson. I contributed and voted for Obama in ’08. My old man drilled into me to “Never make the same mistake twice.” Go ahead, bust my balls and tell me Johnson’s %..I can take it!

  19. “… there’s no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders,” Obama said at press conference in Thailand”

    focking hypocrit ^*&^*)(^T%

Comments are closed.