Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Science & Technology

Senate Moves Toward Making Your Electronic Documents Safer From Police Prying

Ronald Bailey | 4.25.2013 2:18 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Privacy
Credit: Payphoto | Dreamstime

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to send the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act on to the full Senate for consideration. As The Hill explains:

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation on Thursday that would require police to obtain a warrant before accessing emails, Facebook messages and other private online content.

The bill, which is sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), was approved on a voice vote and now heads to the Senate floor.

Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, police only need a subpoena, issued without a judge's approval, to read emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old.

Additionally, PC World reports:

"Americans are very concerned about unwarranted intrusions into our private lives in cyberspace," said Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and main sponsor of the bill. "There's no question that if [police] want to go into your house and go through your files and drawers, they're going to need a search warrant. If you've got the same files in the cloud, you ought to have the same sense of privacy."

Well, yes.

It's a good day when confidentiality wins out over the constabulary. Both Houses of Congress need to approve this legislation as quickly as possible.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Hezbollah Denies it Sent Drone Shot Down By Israel

Ronald Bailey is science correspondent at Reason.

Science & Technology
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (17)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Agammamon   12 years ago

    Sigh, what good will this do when the Justice department simply tells the telecoms that they'll be exempt from prosecution if they play ball and give access without a warrant and that there'll be extra scrutiny if they don't?

  2. Generic Stranger   12 years ago

    Wait, Leahy is co-sponsoring? I smell a rat.

    1. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

      Lets see the text and find out.

      With a simple twist of a phrase you can invert the actual meaning of a sentence while making it look at a casual glance to have not changed. Especially in a language like legalese.

  3. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    "Americans are very concerned about unwarranted intrusions into our private lives in cyberspace," said Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and main sponsor of the bill.

    Except, of course, when IP is maybe possibly in the mix.

  4. generic Brand   12 years ago

    Don't worry, I'm sure there will be thousands of exemptions to be handed out so that this law ultimately does nothing close to what it says it should do, and still screws over the common folk.

    1. Episiarch   12 years ago

      Hey, that's what legislation is for, dude.

  5. califernian   12 years ago

    don't hold your breath on being protected from govt intrusion of your privacy.

    All your datas are belong to us.

  6. Mensan   12 years ago

    OT: I don't know if anyone has posted this yet. Police raid wrong house, and kill the resident. But it's okay, the Chief says it wasn't the cops' fault.

    1. sarcasmic   12 years ago

      Nice link.

    2. Anonymous Coward   12 years ago

      You SF'd the link.

      Real Link

      1. Mensan   12 years ago

        It worked in the preview. I blame the Sciurus.

  7. sarcasmic   12 years ago

    This just means that the police will continue to do it anyway, and if you can afford something better than a public pretender you might get the evidence suppressed.

  8. sarcasmic   12 years ago

    Jessica Alba is still hot.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....orter.html

    'She kept pestering me to let her hit me in the face': Fred Stoller on his 'miserable' one-night stand with Kathy Griffin

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....iffin.html

    1. Anonymous Coward   12 years ago

      Jessica Alba suffers for beauty, commenters hate because bitches be hatin':

      Is anybody else appalled a woman would wear 2 corsets to get to a shape society deems acceptable?!! There are loads of complimentary comments - the woman physically restricted her body to get skinny! What sort of example is this setting to young women and even her two girls?!! And then she tries telling "natural" goods...? I'm disgusted
      - Just another procrastinator

      Pics or GTFO

      I'm sorry but this woman does not have a "deeper intellectual side," she's a vacuous, empty-headed pseudo-actress who is by all means harmless, but vain and conceited as well.
      - battleship188

      Bank statements or GTFO.

      1. Killazontherun   12 years ago

        Got off of work an hour early and picked up some SN Ruthless Rye at the local store, the fat lady in front of me in line was eyeing a tabloid with a story about Kim Kardasian' s pregnancy misery on the cover. She turns to me and says, ' 210 lbs? That ugly bitch is fatter than I am!'
        I say, 'it's all about what's on the inside.' Voice oozing with sarcasm, so I thought.
        She responds while head pointing to the cover, ' no it isn' t! '

  9. WomSom   12 years ago

    Nice, finally something FOR the people!

    http://www.GotzMyAnon.tk

  10. Killazontherun   12 years ago

    Good for Leahy. I'll cross his name off my over the top shit list and put him on the common place vendetta one.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Unanimous Supreme Court Affirms That There Is No 'Good' Discrimination

Emma Camp | 6.6.2025 11:51 AM

U.S. Abandons Afghan Allies as Trump Administration Shuts Down Resettlement Programs

Beth Bailey | 6.6.2025 11:31 AM

The Dreadful Policies Halting Archeological Discoveries

Stevie Miller | 6.6.2025 11:12 AM

That Time the FBI Conspired To Get George Foreman an Award for Boxing

Matthew Petti | 6.6.2025 10:00 AM

Another Divorce for Trump

Liz Wolfe | 6.6.2025 9:40 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!