×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senate Committee Approves Stricter Email Privacy

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the on-to-the-second-challenge dept.

Privacy 60

New submitter DJ Jones sent in good news in the attempts to update privacy rights for stored electronic communication. From the article: "The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a bill that would strengthen privacy protection for e-mails by requiring law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant from a judge in most cases before gaining access to messages in individual accounts stored electronically. The bill is not expected to make it through Congress this year and will be the subject of negotiations next year with the Republican-led House." The EFF seems pretty happy with the proposed changes, but notes that the bill also reduces the protections of the Video Privacy Protection Act in order to allow Netflix et al to sell your viewing history.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

60 comments

National Security letters (2)

martin (1336) | about a year ago | (#42161249)

So how does this work with the laws allowing those nice national security letter to be issued by the fbi etc?

Re:National Security letters (3, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about a year ago | (#42161553)

Didn't bother to read?

Service providers would be prohibited from handing over e-mail, and Mr. Leahy would get rid of the strange 180-day rule that the government can now use to compel disclosure. To access any e-mail content, law enforcement officers would be required to obtain a search warrant from a judge after demonstrating probable cause. The amendments would also oblige officials to give those whose e-mail they are reading a copy of the search warrant.

NSL are optional, as optional as strong-arm tactics can be, and typically require a lawsuit to fight back. If providers are prohibited, NSL carries no weight - they simply respond "I can't, that's illegal."

For the reading impaired: It doesn't mean providers *will not* hand over info with just a letter, it means the ones who care will point out that it's not that simple.

Re:National Security letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42162199)

Didn't bother to read?

Can't read, the link shows up as "page not found". It's either been pulled, never existed, or is hiding behind a paywall.

Re:National Security letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42162359)

b4dc0d3r , you should try to be a bit more rude next time. Use words like "sheeple", that'll help.

Well... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#42161299)

This might be the first time that the CIA and the FBI managed to collaborate on convincing the senate of the importance of privacy...

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161503)

Not surprising after the Patreaus scandal. Funny how these things move fast when it afects politicians. They are probably afraid one of them would be the next Patreaus.

Re:Well... (0)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year ago | (#42161791)

Not surprising after the Patreaus scandal. Funny how these things move fast when it afects politicians. They are probably afraid one of them would be the next Patreaus.

Petraeus was appointed with the administration already knowing all about his peccadilloes. They wanted somebody vulnerable there as a cutout and scapegoat to protect and insulate others including the POTUS from the repercussions of their actions, in this case their actions (or lack of actions) surrounding Benghazi and 4 Americans left to die when help was available, all in order to protect the administration and it's agendas regarding Islamic terrorism and the Muslim Brotherhood ("we don't use the 'T-word' any more", and "the MB are moderate and mostly secular" are parts of it).

Anyone familiar with Chicago politics cant tell you that it's one of the hallmarks of corrupt Chicago-style politics: Always appoint people you've got "leverage" and "dirt" on in case they start singing.

Who do you think was behind the Petraeus scandal coming to light, conveniently for the administration, just as Congress was going to hear Petraeus testify about Benghazi? Laws regarding email privacy would have done exactly squat to prevent the Petraeus emails from coming out.

The existing laws and this bill covering private, personal email have nothing to do with email privacy regarding those in government positions with high national security and secrecy clearances in any case.

Strat

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42162207)

"Chicago politics" is neo-conservative for "negros with guns". Your description of leverage based appointments in the tone of "novel" was intended as cynical, but is strikingly naive in that you think that this is limited to Chicago's geography. NOBODY gets past the republicrat nomination process unless the party bosses have this type of leverage to keep them in-line. It's the reason Barack was allowed to fast-track his way to the white house, and the reason why Mittens was coronated despite the grass-roots kicking and screaming the entire way to Florida. I would venture to guess the entire reason most presidential candidates are recruited from secret societies is because of the career-endind & depraved hazing rituals, ceremonies, and rights of passage that bind these select individuals to America's plutocracy.

You can't have your partners in market collusion breaking ranks under the duress of a prisoners dillema.

The strategies used by the FBI to break up organized crime inspire the same counter-tactics regardless if the crime is prostitution, drug smuggling, or graft. A politician is just an organized criminal with a sufficiently successful PR machine & tax-dollar financed army of lawyers behind them. Hired guns by any other name.

Every time a LCD/DRAM manufacturer, lysine cartel, or hedge-fund gets caught with their pants around their ankles fucking the market, everyone plays their part and acts shocked. Too much like a parisian wife walking in on their cheating spouse. The only moral transgression committed is the lack of discretion. The curtain can't be allowed to be pulled back too far less Joe Six pack's sensibilities become offended and the party has to turn down the music for fear of a noise complaint(symbolic congressional committee action).

So maybe Samsung is looking for fewer scapegoats to tempt the attention of the DoJ?
http://slashdot.org/story/12/12/01/235243/samsung-sets-new-guidelines-for-alcoholic-beverages

In business school they justify it with game theory and ideas like the efficient-market hypothesis. Randian "objectivism" serves as the "papal indulgence" while shareholders try to guess who's dick is in their ass today.

"Chicago-style politics"? You must be new here. Next time the public eye is focused on oil-subsidies, pay no attention to the white house guest list or the Secretary of States attempt to circle the wagons. This shit is in plain sight for anyone who cares to look. Those-who-don't call those-of-us-who-do conspiracy theorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine_price-fixing_conspiracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#SEC_civil_fraud_lawsuit.2C_filed_in_April_2010
http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/12/lg-sharp-plead-guilty-to-lcd-price-fixing-take-585m-fine/

My apologies to the Department of Truth. Give the DoJ a few more "emergency powers" and I'm sure the DHS/US Customs will be happy to DMCA/DNS-server the shit out of these Wiki-articles.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42162269)

"My apologies to the Department of Truth. Give the DoJ a few more "emergency powers" and I'm sure the DHS/US Customs will be happy to DMCA/DNS-server the shit out of these Wiki-articles."

Corporate-personhood meets "right-to-be-forgotten" amirite?

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42162343)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OffscreenVillainDarkMatter

Re:Well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42162825)

"Chicago politics" is neo-conservative for "negros with guns".

Chris "Tingles" Matthews, is that you?

How do you get to "racist" from "Chicago-style politics" when the term itself was created to describe the Daly political machine, a corrupt lily-white Chicago Democrat political organization?

pay no attention to the white house guest list

You mean the one with all the regular visits by the Muslim Brotherhood, Trumka, SEIU, and other big-union officials, and the others that they meet with secretly in offices across from the WH to avoid having them on the visitors list?

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42164393)

Google it: slate.com "chicago-style politics"

Since it is completely off-topic in regards to the Obama administration, it can be assumed from context it's intended to mean "black people with authority=corruption".

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42166455)

"chicago-style politics"

Since it is completely off-topic in regards to the Obama administration...

What color IS the sky on your planet?

Even Democrats acknowledge that the Obama administration is run "Chicago-style". Remember Rahm Emanuel? You know him...the mayor of Chicago, who was a key advisor in the Obama WH just before he left to run for Chicago's mayor, even having to challenge the residency requirements because he was not a resident long enough to qualify to run?

Yeah, mentioning Chicago-style politics and Obama, considering all that stuff, can only mean it's a racist code-word.

Is there any criticism of Obama, outside of not enacting more of the Left's agendas fast enough, that IS NOT racist?.

I swear, if Obama went on national TV and personally took a flamethrower to an old folk's home full of minority elderly AND an orphanage full of poor kids and babies, burning them all to death on live video, there would STILL be those who would label any outrage at, or criticism of, his actions as "racist".

Mini Truth is alive & well.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42166509)

Not to mention, Chicago is exactly where Obama's political career got it's start, in the home of radical Weather Underground leader and terror-bomber Bill Ayers.

It could reasonably be thought from Obama's actions that he is actually the POTUS-elect from the Weather Underground Party, and not the Democratic Party.

Re:Well... (2)

kqs (1038910) | about a year ago | (#42162273)

Not sure which is worse, the constant conspiracy theories or the use of a tragic attack to further your hatred (of a party, a black president, a political theory, not sure and doesn't matter).

This is not an attack against specifically you. This is my sorrow that people cannot agree that their opponent has valid goals but questionable logic in achieving those goals. They must make their opponents into scheming evildoers with no redeeming values.

Trying to turn Petreus into Vince Foster II does not serve democracy or the economy, just your own hatred. Hate Obama for his policies, not is existence or this imaginary crimes.

Re:Well... (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year ago | (#42163231)

This is my sorrow that people cannot agree that their opponent has valid goals...

What if one disagrees with the goals and honestly, with reason, does not consider them valid or has reason to believe the publicly-stated goals are not the actual goals because of actions taken that consistently do not match the publicly-stated goals?

Hate Obama for his policies, not is existence or this imaginary crimes.

I don't hate Obama. I don't even know Obama. Neither do you. All I know are his policies and actions, or lack of actions. And what if he *has* committed real, actual crimes? He should get a pass because of race? Isn't that racist?

I don't even care about being called racist any more. It's been so bastardized, over-used, and misapplied to everything and everybody that disagrees with and/or opposes Obama and/or his policies and goals that it has become nearly meaningless, which I'm sure must delight the *real* racists in the KKK, NBPP, Nation of Islam, Aryan Brotherhood, etc etc.

So, congratulations to all the Progressives/Democrats for all their hard work in setting back race relations and the battle against *actual* racism by decades by pounding this "anyone who disagrees with Obama and/or Progressive policies/goals is a racist!" meme into the ground until nobody cares or pays attention to *actual* racism anymore because of the extreme politicization of the term into a lame and meaningless generic political attack.

Strat

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42163239)

It wasn't an attack! It was a video! And the man responsible is behind bars. Obama didn't smile inwardly while watching the victims die crying out for military intervention. Go to bed feeling happy citizen. We're moving forward.

Re:Well... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#42162491)

> Petraeus was appointed with the administration already knowing all about his peccadilloes.

Since these "peccadiloes" did not start until after the appointment you are really looking like an idiot here.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42162715)

Since these "peccadiloes" did not start until after the appointment you are really looking like an idiot here.

No, you're the idiot and GPP was correct. Petraeus was already involved in adulterous behavior while a general, before his political appointment to head the CIA, and to think that, with all the vetting a CIA Director must go through, that the administration was caught unawares by this scandal is ludicrous and naive in the extreme at best.

Step away from the koolaid.

I am okay with the Netflix change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161301)

Of course I want to remain as anonymous as this post. Why would I be okay with Netflix selling my anonymous viewing details simply because it opens the door for a competing company that will not sell or store viewing habits. Look at DuckDuckGo. That's capitalism. Provide people a service that can or be almost be as comparable, let the people decide which is better.

Re:I am okay with the Netflix change (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#42161331)

Media distribution is a bit different from search engines, because it requires licensing deals for the content to distribute, which are often exclusive. It'd be one thing if Netflix and Company B both distributed all the major films, and you got to choose which platform you preferred based on criteria such as privacy, quality of the software, price, customer service, etc. But in practice the media business is all based around exclusive licensing deals, so for any given movie, you will be able to get it from Netflix, or from Company B, but will not have a choice of both. And what's likely is over the medium term one of those two will come out on top, as they collect all the good deals and drive the other one out of business.

There are possible ways to deal with it, mostly by laws against exclusivity deals or "tying", but in a market that allows tying you end up with those kinds of lack of perfect competition.

Re:I am okay with the Netflix change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161347)

Look at DuckDuckGo

Oh god no! Their search is nowhere comparable to Bing, let alone Google.

As it is, I'm using Bing more and more because Google is getting a little bit annoying with their ad palcements in search results. All those years of using Google, I got trained to go to the first link or so that pops up and now they're ads.

Bing has gotten good enough to be a decent sub for Google.

I guess as Microsfot continually gets their asses kicked, they're gonna start offering better products - Win 8 aside.

Re:I am okay with the Netflix change (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#42161447)

Well, they're not getting their ass kicked in the OS or Office markets. Let FOSS start taking a real bite of their pie there (because really, who else can afford to play until the monopoly is broken?) and maybe *then* they'll start substantially improving those products as well, instead of just keeping the treadmill going.

Re:I am okay with the Netflix change (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#42161381)

Of course I want to remain as anonymous as this post. Why would I be okay with Netflix selling my anonymous viewing details simply because it opens the door for a competing company that will not sell or store viewing habits. Look at DuckDuckGo. That's capitalism. Provide people a service that can or be almost be as comparable, let the people decide which is better.

Who said anything about selling 'anonymized'(to the degree that actually works) viewing histories?

Re:I am okay with the Netflix change (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about a year ago | (#42162063)

Well, for one thing, Netflix had a contest a few years back that accidentally showed that you can't anonymize them if you have enough of the history to be useful, or at least that anonymization is more difficult than it would initially appear.

Why is this needed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161319)

Why is a bill needed for this? We have the 4th amendment already!

Re:Why is this needed? (2)

thaylin (555395) | about a year ago | (#42161341)

Because recent court cases have held that the 4th amendment does not cover emails, stored on public servers

Re:Why is this needed? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#42161357)

Unless it's encrypted perhaps?

That would allow a "reasonable expectation of privacy"

Re:Why is this needed? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#42162557)

Reasoanble expectation of privacy does not require diligence of that nature. If i go into a bathroom stall with no door on it, i am still afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy. Comms should be no different.

Re:Why is this needed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161391)

Recent court cases have evidently set some bizarre and creepy precedents, then.

Re:Why is this needed? (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#42161541)

More like the ECPA of 1986 didn't anticipate that we would en masse turn our private documents over to third party companies who happily data mine our privates for profit and at the same time expect these documents would be considered private in some way.

Silly behavior I think.

Re:Why is this needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161595)

Exactly. There are plenty of ways to maintain privacy while communicating online. People just generally seem to be sheep, willing to do whatever the herd is doing, and the herd seems perfectly happy to let itself be data-mined to any extreme whatsoever.

Re:Why is this needed? (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | about a year ago | (#42161647)

One should not have to make an effort to maintain security "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" - breaking that expectation of privacy should be what requires extra effort and explicitly specified reason.

Re:Why is this needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161701)

Sure, but that requires that people don't trumpet the minutia of their life from the rooftops on Facebook... you can't protect people against themselves.

It also requires email clients use encryption by default, and they don't. They could be built that way, but it'd make them a tiny little bit harder to use (you'd have to enter your friends' public keys before sending an email), and anything that makes people do even the most tiny bit of thinking at all is effectively impossible. You can't make somebody think who doesn't want to.

So I agree with you in principle, but in practice, people en-masse will actively sabotage their own expectation of privacy. It's pretty hard to reach the world you want to see in the face of that.

Re:Why is this needed? (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#42161787)

Once you've willingly handed over your papers to a third party, though, it's now up to that third party, not you, what to do with them. If Facebook wants to blab to the FBI without a warrant, they're the property owners. They have 4th-amendment rights in searches of their servers, but you don't, because you don't own the servers.

Re:Why is this needed? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#42162025)

Once you've willingly handed over your papers to a third party, though, it's now up to that third party, not you, what to do with them.

Sure, but we can still decide whether any evidence the government collects from these third parties is applicable in court if it collected it without a warrant. As it is, they can simply get all of the information they want from third parties as long as the third parties willingly give it to them, and I'm not sure if it's wise to allow the government to have such a power.

Re:Why is this needed? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#42162569)

HIPAA says LOL. We have for a very long time no applied strict privacy to records we deem very sensitive. There is no reason we cant extend that model, if necessary. At the end of the day, it is the government that says what companies can do with data of any kind, and last i chcked WE were the government..

Re:Why is this needed? (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#42162623)

Yeah, that I agree with. But those are statutory protections passed by a legislature; the 4th amendment doesn't compel HIPAA.

Re:Why is this needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42162005)

Private companies or not, this is a huge, unanticipated loophole. The government shouldn't be able to essentially outsource all of its work to third parties and collect all the information it wants without a warrant...

Re:Why is this needed? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#42161451)

Because it is "on the internet". And as we've seen time and again, "on the internet" trumps petty, meaningless things like that consti... constipation? whatever.

Because of Petreaus (5, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#42161353)

Here's an example of how legal protections for privacy only get enacted when someone powerful gets screwed.

The timing sure makes this look like a reaction to the Petreaus scandal. From the news reports it sounds like the only reason Petreaus got caught is because of what had been basically carte blanche for the FBI to dig through any webmail system. Under normal circumstances the FBI should not have been investigating random threatening emails to a civilian - it was only because the civilian knew an FBI agent that wanted to bone her that the FBI even got involved. It seems implausible that a judge would have issued a warrant under those circumstances, but the FBI didn't need one under current law.

It's been 25 years, long enough that most people don't remember Robert Bork's supreme court nomination casuing his video rental records to become embarrasingly public and ultimately resulting in the passage of the Video Privacy Protection Act. So its not much of a surprise that the VPPA is getting dismantled - despite the actual threat being worse today since everything is in massive centralized databases now instead of paper records in a local store.

Re:Because of Petreaus (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about a year ago | (#42161635)

Bork's records were a direct result - largely because Bork wanted to expand executive power, and claimed that people had limited privacy rights.

The timing in this case does make it look suspiciously related, but you missed the point. It was not related to Petreaus. This is fear of their own mails being released and searched.

In the Bork case, it was probably an employee who handed over a hand written list to a reporter, to prove a point. And the punishment was only $2500. In this case, it is the DOJ who thinks they can just ask for whatever they want, and frequently get it.

Any high profile case would have resulted in the same legislation, not just someone in power, because this is all about protecting the Legislative branch from the Executive power grab. This is the system of checks and balances at work, slowly.

And the VPAA is not getting dismantled - it just requires asking permission first, with an amendment to require that every 2 years. I assume that will be opt-out, but at least you will have the option.

Re:Because of Petreaus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42171243)

As the other poster said, this isn't exactly because of Petreaus. This is because people in power found out their e-mails aren't safe when they heard about Petreaus. However, Petreaus would have been caught anyway. His crazy mistress was sending threatening letters to a friend of his. There was probable cause to get a real warrant.

Damn you, Senate! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161389)

Just when I think I understand how you function, you make a law that actually does what it's supposed to do instead of the exact opposite.

Re:Damn you, Senate! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161691)

Sorry - you are apparently doomed to a life of disappointment.

"...before gaining access to messages in individual accounts stored electronically."

So the FBI et alia has to get a warrant: to access emails on Google's servers. So what?

They already read every email in the country (listen to every phone call, examine every bank transaction, cross-reference every text message, and transcribe every tweet, etc.), at the intercept points around the internet. The FBI, for example, uses Carnivore.

All this bill does is make it easier for the various intelligence agencies to wiggle out from under a charge of invasion of privacy. They show a judge - in camera - the 'probable cause' obtained by Carnivore... and so the judge grants a warrant. And it is the results of the warrant that are used in court against a defendant (assuming the decision isn't taken to just dronefire a missile at him/her). So the warrant is valid, and the reasons for granting that warrant are a state secret.

Just another layer of bullshit...

Netflix (2)

benjamindees (441808) | about a year ago | (#42161457)

the bill also reduces the protections of the Video Privacy Protection Act in order to allow Netflix et al to sell your viewing history.

Just who does Netflix think they are, anyways? The internet is not, like, a big truck that they can just use to spy on everyone.

Re:Netflix (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#42161481)

My question is are they selling individual data or aggregated anonymous analytic data. Big difference.

Re:Netflix (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#42161527)

My understanding is that it lets Netflix share individual information if you give consent.

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161819)

And you gave consent by not canceling the service, or didn't you read paragraph 56 subsection 31?

Re:Netflix (2)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year ago | (#42162669)

The law was kind of an outdated one. It seems like the purpose of it was to prevent the kid at blockbuster from disclosing the senator's history of borrowing those porno-betamax tapes.

User Notifications (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161473)

One additional step would be a nice courtesy protection for the less paranoid amongst us who trust public servers:

The government should be accountable for notifying the user when an investigation is concluded (and not under secrecy) so the user is aware that documents thought private are no longer so.

approves? it's already available (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161545)

Stricter email privacy has been available for many years [wikipedia.org] .

Re:approves? it's already available (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42161605)

Yes but that means people must be able to think beyond "click on the purty icon", such as to understand the concept of encryption vs clear text and that their emails go through 3rd party servers, and very few people are capable of that level of understanding.

People are dumb. No solution that expects otherwise can possibly succeed.

But of course. (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year ago | (#42161703)

All senators want their email left under lock and key at all times. Since they can't be exempt, better law-it!

I'm serious.

the devil is in the details et al (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42162285)

"but notes that the bill also reduces the protections of the Video Privacy Protection Act in order to allow Netflix et al to sell your viewing history."

Since it's clear that tracking IPs, cookies and other fingerprints is accurate and done all the time this type of reducing in VPPA means that any type of video you view could be cause for trouble, even if at the moment the tracking data is not legally conclusive as an identification.

Watching porn, or certain types of porn is an obvious sore spot...

Less obvious would be watching any type of video deemed subversive, videos about violence, weapons, military tactics, drugs, etc... We already use circumstantial "evidence" like this to convince juries and judges. Guilt by association and interest... Or perhaps simply "suspect by association and interest", what happens when there is a shooting nearby and you become a suspect simple because the FBI is able to easy perform searches determine the types of videos that someone within a certain distance of the shooting occurred? Of course other evidence and information is required, but you have to admit that alibi's and the lack of evidence has not stopped the arrest of people before... I would guess that the average person will find themselves jobless after missing work for several days as a result of an arrest like this, even if it ends up being found as incorrect.

Pig in a poke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42163225)

Look carefully for the hidden and attached.

I have a better idea (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#42163701)

Encrypt everything.

Patriot act/NSLs/gag orders don't work unless a third party has goods able to be surrendered.

Requiring keys to be coughed up from data owner (still) requires notification to the owner and a court order.

What ELSE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42168081)

What ELSE are they sliding under the radar with it?

Get rid of the NDAA and arrest these oath breakers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42169825)

Restore the US Constitution.
Arrest the cock sucking banksters
Arrest the cock sucking oath breakers
I will then come back with a website, hosting, domains, and tv show with a vengeance.

Until then, let it all crash, I could give a shit about your job, business, or retirement, I hope you fucking lose it, fact is I don't give a fuck if this whole world blows up. I don't want to live, with these unconstitutional oath breaking mother fuckers screwing up everything full spectrum.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...