<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;vppa&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:30:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Apparently, Congress Isn't Actually Interested In Requiring A Warrant For Law Enforcement To Read Your Email</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121227/02441521496/apparently-congress-isnt-actually-interested-requiring-warrant-law-enforcement-to-read-your-email.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121227/02441521496/apparently-congress-isnt-actually-interested-requiring-warrant-law-enforcement-to-read-your-email.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Yes, we've already covered the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/06554421507/senate-rejects-final-fisa-amendment-lets-spying-program-stay-shrouded-secrecy.shtml">rejection</a> of key amendments in the FISA Amendments Act renewal, but that wasn't the only case of Congress ignoring the public's privacy concerns as they close out this session.
<br /><br />
Back in September, we noted that Senator Patrick Leahy, who has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120913/22534720379/senator-leahy-brings-back-bill-that-would-require-warrants-when-govt-snoops-through-servers-your-info.shtml">working on</a> much needed reforms for ECPA (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) -- such as requiring law enforcement <i>get a warrant</i> to read your email -- had attached his ECPA reform plan to an update of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).  While I know some privacy folks were worried about this update to the VPPA, I don't have much of a problem with it.  The original VPPA, written as a quick response to a video store revealing Robert Bork's (somewhat boring) video rental history during his Supreme Court nomination hearings, did seem a bit limiting -- especially for online video sites such as Netflix that wanted to add some useful social features.  However, it was the ECPA reform part that was more important.  Attaching ECPA reform to VPPA reform didn't make some privacy folks happy, but they seemed willing to go along with the VPPA changes if it really meant that we'd get warrant requirements for emails and other digital messages.
<br /><br />
There were some attempts to water down that ECPA reform at the end of last month, but the Senate Judiciary Committee <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121129/12241721176/senate-committee-approves-ecpa-reform-that-requires-warrants-will-it-ever-become-law.shtml">kept the warrant requirement</a> in there and rejected various attempts to weaken the bill.  As we noted, however, it still was a long way from becoming law, given the need to pass a full Senate vote and to have a companion House bill make the rounds.  We assumed that there would be no movement until next year and the new Congress.
<br /><br />
But... late last week, the House <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57559919-93/house-approves-netflix-backed-changes-to-video-privacy-law/" target="_blank">rubberstamped</a> the VPPA update, and the Senate, almost immediately <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/congress-caves-privacy/" target="_blank">signed off on the House's version</a>, which the President is expected to sign any moment now.  In case you missed it, that means that the ECPA reforms -- which were supposed to be bundled with the VPPA to make the whole thing palatable -- got dropped entirely.  And now we get the VPPA reforms and <a href="http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/congress-at-last-minute-drops-requirement-to-obtain-warrant-to-monitor-email-121225?news=846578" target="_blank">no ECPA reform at all</a>.  Neat trick.  "Bundle" two things to get support... and then at the last minute drop one part and rush through the other.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121227/02441521496/apparently-congress-isnt-actually-interested-requiring-warrant-law-enforcement-to-read-your-email.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121227/02441521496/apparently-congress-isnt-actually-interested-requiring-warrant-law-enforcement-to-read-your-email.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121227/02441521496/apparently-congress-isnt-actually-interested-requiring-warrant-law-enforcement-to-read-your-email.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it-was-all-a-charade</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121227/02441521496</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:25:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Law Enforcement Officials Freak Out About Possibility Of Having To Get Warrants To Read Your Email</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120921/00444620455/law-enforcement-officials-freak-out-about-possibility-having-to-get-warrants-to-read-your-email.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120921/00444620455/law-enforcement-officials-freak-out-about-possibility-having-to-get-warrants-to-read-your-email.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently noted that Senator Leahy had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120913/22534720379/senator-leahy-brings-back-bill-that-would-require-warrants-when-govt-snoops-through-servers-your-info.shtml">attached</a> his mostly good ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) reform bill to another bill reforming the VPPA (Video Privacy Protection Act).  The ECPA reform would update a decades-old law that law enforcement has interpreted to more or less mean they don't need a warrant to read your online email.  Leahy's update would require a warrant.  This is a good and important reform that should be supported.  But, of course, law enforcement freaked out and it appears that <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57517033-38/senate-delays-netflix-e-mail-privacy-fix-after-cops-protest/?part=rss&#038;tag=feed&#038;subj=News-PoliticsandLaw" target="_blank">Leahy has backed down</a>, delaying hearings on the bill for now (funny how he really wanted to push through PIPA despite massive public protests, but a few law enforcement people get upset about respecting the 4th Amendment and things get delayed).  From Declan McCullagh's coverage:
<blockquote><i>
The delay comes two days after a phalanx of law enforcement organizations objected to the legislation, asking Leahy to "reconsider acting" on it "until a more comprehensive review of its impact on law enforcement investigations is conducted." The groups included the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association.
<br /><br />
[....] A person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have been expressing their displeasure about requiring search warrants. The department is on record as opposing such a requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations. 
</i></blockquote>
Of course it would have "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.  So do lots of things -- but those are the rules law enforcement plays by in a free society.  It's not built to make law enforcement's life easy.
<br /><br />
Either way, it appears that this bit of ECPA reform will get pushed off once again.  Hopefully, when it comes back, it won't be watered down.
<br /><br />
For what it's worth, both the EFF and the ACLU -- who strongly support ECPA reform similar to what Leahy has been proposing -- have also not been that happy with how Leahy introduced this bill, because they both oppose the changes to the VPPA, which they're afraid will weaken privacy for people.  This is a (somewhat rare, but not unprecedented) situation where I disagree with both of those organizations.  The VPPA was a specific and broad carve-out to deal with a single situation (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act" target="_blank">bork bork bork</a>).  I think it's reasonable to update it to allow for things like letting people <i>choose</i> to let Netflix and social networks share info on what movies they've watched -- just like the can choose to show what music they listen to.  I don't necessarily believe that it makes sense to link the VPPA to ECPA reform, but I don't think that passing the VPPA reform is so problematic that it should stop ECPA reform.  Of course, if law enforcement has its way (and so far, that seems to be the case), ECPA reform might never happen.  Is it really worth worrying about how you can choose to share your Netflix movies on Facebook while the Justice Department feels it can snoop broadly through your Gmail?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120921/00444620455/law-enforcement-officials-freak-out-about-possibility-having-to-get-warrants-to-read-your-email.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120921/00444620455/law-enforcement-officials-freak-out-about-possibility-having-to-get-warrants-to-read-your-email.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120921/00444620455/law-enforcement-officials-freak-out-about-possibility-having-to-get-warrants-to-read-your-email.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bill-delayed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120921/00444620455</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>