Sign this, would ya? (USA Citizens Only)
-
Quote:
Reform ECPA: Tell the Government to Get a Warrant Americans are deeply concerned about NSA surveillance. But the NSA’s not the only problem. An outdated law says the IRS and hundreds of other agencies can read our communications without a warrant. That law, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), was written over 25 years ago, before the services we use today even existed. Right now, several bills in Congress would fix this by updating ECPA to require a warrant, but regulatory bodies are blocking reform in order to gain new powers of warrantless access. We call on the Obama Administration to support ECPA reform and to reject any special rules that would force online service providers to disclose our email without a warrant.
Protect our privacy! Make the Government get a Warrant!
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant. - Mitchell Kapor
-
Quote:
Reform ECPA: Tell the Government to Get a Warrant Americans are deeply concerned about NSA surveillance. But the NSA’s not the only problem. An outdated law says the IRS and hundreds of other agencies can read our communications without a warrant. That law, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), was written over 25 years ago, before the services we use today even existed. Right now, several bills in Congress would fix this by updating ECPA to require a warrant, but regulatory bodies are blocking reform in order to gain new powers of warrantless access. We call on the Obama Administration to support ECPA reform and to reject any special rules that would force online service providers to disclose our email without a warrant.
Protect our privacy! Make the Government get a Warrant!
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant. - Mitchell Kapor
Yeah, that'll work. :rolleyes:
-
Quote:
Reform ECPA: Tell the Government to Get a Warrant Americans are deeply concerned about NSA surveillance. But the NSA’s not the only problem. An outdated law says the IRS and hundreds of other agencies can read our communications without a warrant. That law, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), was written over 25 years ago, before the services we use today even existed. Right now, several bills in Congress would fix this by updating ECPA to require a warrant, but regulatory bodies are blocking reform in order to gain new powers of warrantless access. We call on the Obama Administration to support ECPA reform and to reject any special rules that would force online service providers to disclose our email without a warrant.
Protect our privacy! Make the Government get a Warrant!
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant. - Mitchell Kapor
The 4th Amendment is the 4th Amendment... it doesn't say "except for electronic communications". I agree they should need a warrant. But then again, this administration doesn't follow any rules of any other amendment so why would they start now LOL. Randy
-
Quote:
Reform ECPA: Tell the Government to Get a Warrant Americans are deeply concerned about NSA surveillance. But the NSA’s not the only problem. An outdated law says the IRS and hundreds of other agencies can read our communications without a warrant. That law, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), was written over 25 years ago, before the services we use today even existed. Right now, several bills in Congress would fix this by updating ECPA to require a warrant, but regulatory bodies are blocking reform in order to gain new powers of warrantless access. We call on the Obama Administration to support ECPA reform and to reject any special rules that would force online service providers to disclose our email without a warrant.
Protect our privacy! Make the Government get a Warrant!
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant. - Mitchell Kapor
-
The 4th Amendment is the 4th Amendment... it doesn't say "except for electronic communications". I agree they should need a warrant. But then again, this administration doesn't follow any rules of any other amendment so why would they start now LOL. Randy
rriegel wrote:
it doesn't say "except for electronic communications". I agree they should need a warrant
It does however make it rather clear that that possession is part of it. That is why the government has the right to search your trash. And you don't have possession of your email when it is moving between one part of the world and another. And many forms of electronic communication are not in fact owned by the individual but are instead owned by a corporation. And of course the corporations are rather adamant about protecting their right to look at your electronic communication for absolutely any reason they want to.
-
rriegel wrote:
it doesn't say "except for electronic communications". I agree they should need a warrant
It does however make it rather clear that that possession is part of it. That is why the government has the right to search your trash. And you don't have possession of your email when it is moving between one part of the world and another. And many forms of electronic communication are not in fact owned by the individual but are instead owned by a corporation. And of course the corporations are rather adamant about protecting their right to look at your electronic communication for absolutely any reason they want to.
The analogy between trash and electronic communication is invalid. The consideration is more so ownership than possession. When you throw something in the trash you are giving up ownership. When you send something electronically you aren't. Otherwise, your argument could go against copyright. No, there's still ownership whether that ownership is transferred or shared by the recipient is another thing.
-
The analogy between trash and electronic communication is invalid. The consideration is more so ownership than possession. When you throw something in the trash you are giving up ownership. When you send something electronically you aren't. Otherwise, your argument could go against copyright. No, there's still ownership whether that ownership is transferred or shared by the recipient is another thing.
Ownership and possession are not the same thing at all. When you create an e-mail, you initially both own and possess it. To my mind, once you've sent it you still 'own' it even though possession has been transferred to your ISP, intermediaries, and then the intended receiver of the message.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
The 4th Amendment is the 4th Amendment... it doesn't say "except for electronic communications". I agree they should need a warrant. But then again, this administration doesn't follow any rules of any other amendment so why would they start now LOL. Randy
From what I know all this has been going on rather longer than "this administration" has been holding the steering wheel....
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can. “We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone "The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
-
Quote:
Reform ECPA: Tell the Government to Get a Warrant Americans are deeply concerned about NSA surveillance. But the NSA’s not the only problem. An outdated law says the IRS and hundreds of other agencies can read our communications without a warrant. That law, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), was written over 25 years ago, before the services we use today even existed. Right now, several bills in Congress would fix this by updating ECPA to require a warrant, but regulatory bodies are blocking reform in order to gain new powers of warrantless access. We call on the Obama Administration to support ECPA reform and to reject any special rules that would force online service providers to disclose our email without a warrant.
Protect our privacy! Make the Government get a Warrant!
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant. - Mitchell Kapor
I'm not a USian but you'd really need to get rid of homeland security and the Patriot Act (or whatever it is called) as well. They don't need to monitor your electronic communications when they can arrest and detain you for looking sideways at someone at the airport or wherever and then water-board you into confessing to whatever they like....
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can. “We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone "The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
-
Yeah, that'll work. :rolleyes:
Doing nothing will work better? Take the democratic route, and sign if you wish.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
rriegel wrote:
it doesn't say "except for electronic communications". I agree they should need a warrant
It does however make it rather clear that that possession is part of it. That is why the government has the right to search your trash. And you don't have possession of your email when it is moving between one part of the world and another. And many forms of electronic communication are not in fact owned by the individual but are instead owned by a corporation. And of course the corporations are rather adamant about protecting their right to look at your electronic communication for absolutely any reason they want to.
That may be true for you, but doesn't apply to the rest of us -- our e-mails aren't trash.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
The analogy between trash and electronic communication is invalid. The consideration is more so ownership than possession. When you throw something in the trash you are giving up ownership. When you send something electronically you aren't. Otherwise, your argument could go against copyright. No, there's still ownership whether that ownership is transferred or shared by the recipient is another thing.
tgrt wrote:
When you throw something in the trash you are giving up ownership
Wrong. That is not what the Supreme Court made the decision on. It was based on giving up a reasonable expectation of privacy.
tgrt wrote:
Otherwise, your argument could go against copyright.
Nonsensical argument. Copyright doesn't protect the content from access, it only protects it from commercial use.
tgrt wrote:
No, there's still ownership whether that ownership is transferred or shared by the recipient is another thing.
And as I already said, the companies are quite adamant that they own it.
-
That may be true for you, but doesn't apply to the rest of us -- our e-mails aren't trash.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!