9-22-2009 National:
You might think that a private-mail sent to another U.S. citizen's personal account isn't subject to government monitoring. But that assumption could be wrong if the recipient is a federal government employee.
Both recipients and senders have no reasonable expectation of privacy if an e-mail is opened by a federal employee logged into a work computer network, according to an Aug. 14 legal opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice that was released Friday. It says that the one-party consent rule in the Wiretap Act of 1968 authorizes such e-mail monitoring, because the government worker is deemed to have consented, reports the Washington Post.
"A person communicating with another assumes the risk that the person has agreed to permit the government to monitor the contents of that communication," writes acting assistant attorney general David Barron of the Office of Legal Counsel in the memo (PDF).
Because federal workers are notified when they log into their government computers that the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring them for malicious intrusions, that satisfies the one-party consent requirement, according to the post.
In reaching this conclusion, the Aug. 14 opinion relies on a Jan. 9 opinion (PDF). It, too, was released on Friday. ..Source.. by Martha Neil
September 22, 2009
Feds Can Monitor Personal E-Mail Sent Privately to Gov’t Workers, DOJ Says
October 16, 2008
TX- AG wants online IDs of sex offenders listed
If "listed" means display to the public, then that is against current federal privacy laws and against U.S. Supreme court precedent which held that every citizen has the right to anonymous free speech. It is amazing how uninformed lawmakers are with how things related to the Internet work. ex: Dormant and inactive e-mail addresses. That is just the tip of the iceberg of problems that could result in arresting innocent folks.
10-16-2008 Texas:
AUSTIN — Not sure who your kid is chatting with online? If Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has his way, the state's public sex offender registry would include e-mail addresses and online names.
In what some are calling the toughest reporting proposals in the country, Abbott on Wednesday called for giving the public more information about the state's 53,000 registered sex offenders. Aiming to crack down on cyberpredators, Abbott hopes to expand the state sex offender registry to include e-mail addresses and Internet screen names.
“Parents could check all the e-mail addresses sent to and from their children's computer to find out if their children are communicating with a sex offender,” Abbott said.
He said his proposal would provide Texans with the “most comprehensive reporting requirements in the country” and would provide law enforcement, and ultimately the public, “with new and better tools to track and monitor sex offenders.”
The attorney general's plan would need the Legislature's approval; Abbott said he plans to meet with lawmakers in coming weeks.
Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, said he doesn't have any problems providing the public with more information on sex offenders and thinks Abbott's proposals have a good chance of passing the Legislature next year.
Texas leaders have enacted increasingly strict registration requirements for sex offenders. This year, the Texas sex offender registry expanded to include an offender's school or place of work.
Later this year, Texans will be able to sign up for e-mail alerts when an offender moves into a neighborhood. The public “can sign up to be notified about changes in a specific ZIP code or regarding a specific offender,” said Tom Vinger, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, which maintains the state registry.
Some question whether the focus on online predators creates a false sense of security.
Jill Levenson, a clinical social worker and professor of human services at Lynn University in Florida who has studied how sex crime policies affect sex crime rates, said children “are most often molested by people who are acquainted with the family, relatives and friends of the family, people who are trusted and use that trust to gain access.
“Parents certainly need to take precautions (regarding who their children are communicating with online) but in a way, all of this attention to Internet predators and stranger abductions and sexually motivated homicides takes away from important information we need to be giving parents, which is that children are much, much more likely to be abused by people (the family knows).”
As for whether tougher reporting requirements are effective in lowering the rate of sex crimes, Levenson said the studies she and others have done have been, at best, mixed.
“Overall, the totality of research so far looking at the impact of registration and notification with sex crime rates does not really indicate there is a strong deterrent or preventive effect,” Levenson said.
She said she knew of no public registry in the nation containing offenders' e-mail addresses or online names.
But Congress continues to pass stricter laws, as do states. Many registries, including the Texas registry, include at least some juveniles, their names, addresses and photos. Critics in Texas complain that the state registry includes anyone convicted of a sex crime, whether the offender had sex with a teen who was a few years younger or whether the offender repeatedly used force against a young child.
Bruce Siegel, 38, a convicted sex offender in the Dallas area, complained that Abbott's proposal targets all offenders, not just the ones he believes the public needs to be warned about. “Now you're asking police departments to monitor more, which spreads them pretty thin when they really need to ride herd on 10 or 30 percent of (all offenders), Siegel said. “It's going to cause more paperwork and a lot of wasted time.”
Abbott's proposal also would require offenders to report their cell phone numbers to law enforcement, though the numbers would not be made public.
It would also restrict some high-risk offenders from using the Internet at all.
..News Source.. by Lisa Sandberg - Express-News
July 30, 2008
Yahoo spent $630,000 to lobby in second quarter
Am I the only one who sees a major conflict between the two other bills (highlighted below) Yahoo has lobbied for?
7-30-2008 National:
WASHINGTON - Yahoo Inc. spent $630,000 in the second quarter to lobby on online privacy, patent reform and other issues, according to a recent disclosure report.
The Internet company lobbied on measures to protect data, prevent identity theft, and on legislation to improve federal efforts to halt piracy and counterfeiting of American-owned intellectual property.
In addition, Yahoo (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ) lobbied on proposals to crack down on spyware and phishing scams. Spyware are computer programs that can surreptitiously access hard drives to track online behavior and steal sensitive personal data, while phishing scams use fake e-mails and fraudulent Web sites to trick consumers into releasing credit card numbers and other personal information.
The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company also lobbied on federal auctions of wireless spectrum and on online advertising, including an agreement that will allow Google Inc. (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people ) to sell some ads displayed alongside search results on Yahoo's Web site.
Other bills the company lobbied on would:
_ Require registered sex offenders to furnish their e-mail and instant messaging addresses, and require the U.S. attorney general to have a system that allows social networking Web sites to compare their user lists with the National Sex Offender Registry.
_ Make it illegal for U.S. companies hosting Internet content, such as Web pages or e-mail, to give users' personal information to governments that restrict Internet access.
..News Source.. by Forbes
July 19, 2008
VT- Library Confrontation Points Up Privacy Dilemma
7-19-2008 Vermont:
Search For Missing Girl In Vermont Sets Off Clash Between Police Urgency And Library Privacy
Children's librarian Judith Flint was getting ready for the monthly book discussion group for 8- and 9-year-olds on "Love That Dog" when police showed up.
They weren't kidding around: Five state police detectives wanted to seize Kimball Public Library's public access computers as they frantically searched for a 12-year-old girl, acting on a tip that she sometimes used the terminals.
Flint demanded a search warrant, touching off a confrontation that pitted the privacy rights of library patrons against the rights of police on official business.
"It's one of the most difficult situations a library can face," said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, deputy director of intellectual freedom issues for the American Library Association.
Investigators did obtain a warrant about eight hours later, but the June 26 standoff in the 105-year-old, red brick library on Main Street frustrated police and had fellow librarians cheering Flint.
"What I observed when I came in were a bunch of very tall men encircling a very small woman," said the library's director, Amy Grasmick, who held fast to the need for a warrant after coming to the rescue of the 4-foot-10 Flint.
Library records and patron privacy have been hot topics since the passage of the U.S. Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Library advocates have accused the government of using the anti-terrorism law to find out _ without proper judicial oversight or after-the-fact reviews _ what people research in libraries.
But the investigation of Brooke Bennett's disappearance wasn't a Patriot Act case.
"We had to balance out the fact that we had information that we thought was true that Brooke Bennett used those computers to communicate on her MySpace account," said Col. James Baker, director of the Vermont State Police. "We had to balance that out with protecting the civil liberties of everybody else, and this was not an easy decision to make."
Brooke, from Braintree, vanished the day before the June 26 confrontation in the children's section of the tiny library. Investigators went to the library chasing a lead that she had used the computers there to arrange a rendezvous.
Brooke was found dead July 2. An uncle, convicted sex offender Michael Jacques, has since been charged with kidnapping her. Authorities say Jacques had gotten into her MySpace account and altered postings to make investigators believe she had run off with someone she met online.
Flint was firm in her confrontation with the police.
"The lead detective said to me that they need to take the public computers and I said `OK, show me your warrant and that will be that,'" said Flint, 56. "He did say he didn't need any paper. I said `You do.' He said `I'm just trying to save a 12-year-old girl,' and I told him `Show me the paper.'"
Cybersecurity expert Fred H. Cate, a law professor at Indiana University, said the librarians acted appropriately.
"If you've told all your patrons `We won't hand over your records unless we're ordered to by a court,' and then you turn them over voluntarily, you're liable for anything that goes wrong," he said.
A new Vermont law that requires libraries to demand court orders in such situations took effect July 1, but it wasn't in place that June day. The library's policy was to require one.
The librarians did agree to shut down the computers so no one could tamper with them, which had been a concern to police.
Once in police hands, how broadly could police dig into the computer hard drives without violating the privacy of other library patrons?
Baker wouldn't discuss what information was gleaned from the computers or what state police did with information about other people, except to say the scope of the warrant was restricted to the missing girl investigation.
"The idea that they took all the computers, it's like data mining," said Caldwell-Stone. "Now, all of a sudden, since you used that computer, your information is exposed to law enforcement and can be used in ways that (it) wasn't intended.'" ..News Source.. by CBS News
MA- Prosecution vs. privacy
7-19-2008 Massachusetts:
TUCKED AWAY in an uncontroversial bill lengthening sentences for sex offenders in Massachusetts is a provision that expands the right of law enforcement officials to poke around - at their own discretion - in citizens' telephone, e-mail, and Internet records. Governor Patrick should tell legislators to drop or scale back this clause before he signs the overall bill.
Since 1966, prosecutors have been able to get telephone records without warrants. But getting access to e-mail and Internet records has required a grand jury subpoena. Attorney General Martha Coakley, who favors the expanded authority, sees it as simply a case of updating the tools prosecutors have to keep pace with new technology. She emphasizes, correctly, that the bill does not grant prosecutors access to any content. For that, a warrant is needed.
-Notice how the state ignores that e-mail addresses (knowledge of the actual address) is in the RSOs HOME which is protected by the 4th Amendment, this bill trys to get around constitutional protections.
But all technologies are not created equal. It is not clear that records of email and Internet use are so similar to telephone records that prosecutors should have the same broad right to examine them - without first convincing a judge or grand jury that doing so is critical to a criminal case. Under the bill, prosecutors would need only to claim "reasonable grounds to believe" that the records are "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."
Coakley refers to the measure's potential usefulness in investigating cases of child pornography, online threats, and identity theft. But nothing in the bill limits this new power to such cases. Her office cites the 1966 law as a precedent. While lawmakers sought it originally as a tool in bookmaking investigations, the wording of the law did not restrict its use to such cases. But this doesn't mean that, 32 years later, in an age of heightened sensitivity about privacy, the public wants prosecutors to have the same latitude to look at email and Internet records in connection with any form of criminal investigation.
The power that Coakley is seeking is quite different from the authority that Congress has unwisely granted the Bush administration to eavesdrop on telephone conversations without a warrant. But the measures have two elements in common. Each grants blanket immunity to the telecommunications companies involved, removing any incentive for them to blow the whistle on abusive practices. And each, by freeing officials of the need to get a warrant, eliminates the checks and balances that the court system can supply when prosecutors go on a fishing expedition. The governor should reject this bill and have the Legislature design one that is more focused on specific Internet-related crimes. ..News Source.. by The Boston Globe
June 20, 2007
A User's Guide to the Stored Communications Act, and a Legislator's Guide to Amending It
Abstract:
Americans care deeply about their Internet privacy. But if they want to know how federal law protects the privacy of their stored Internet communications, they'll quickly learn that it's surprisingly difficult to figure out. The federal statute that protects the privacy of stored Internet communications is the Stored Communications Act (SCA), passed as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and codified at 18 U.S.C. section 2701-11. But courts, legislators, and even legal scholars have had a very hard time understanding the method behind the madness of the SCA. The statute is dense and confusing, and that confusion has made it difficult for legislators to legislate in the field, reporters to report about it, and scholars to write scholarship in this very important area.
This Article presents a user's guide to the SCA. It explains in relatively simple terms the structure and text of the Act so that legislators, courts, academics, and students can understand how it works - and in some cases, how it doesn't work. I hope to explain the basic nuts and bolts of the statute and show that the statute works reasonably effectively, although certainly not perfectly. My second goal is to show how Congress needs to amend the SCA. I recommend three ways that Congress should rethink the SCA to better protect the privacy of stored Internet communications, clarify its protections, and update the statute for the present. Specifically, I argue that Congress should raise the threshold the government must satisfy to compel the contents of certain Internet communications; that it should simplify the statute dramatically by eliminating the confusing categories of electronic communication service and remote computing service, and eliminating redundant text; and that it should restructure the remedies scheme for violations of the statute. ..more.. by ORIN S. KERR, George Washington University - Law School
