ECPA Amendment Adopted Despite Flurry of Law Enforcement Letters

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment that would require law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant in order to access the contents of email and other personal and proprietary electronic communications. The warrant-for-content amendment to the Senate version of H.R. 2471 would update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which currently extends the warrant requirement only to email 180 days old or less, and does not protect documents stored “in the cloud” by remote computing services. The Committee is expected to take up the bill again when it returns after the November elections.

The vote is particularly significant because it comes in face of a flurry of letters from law enforcement entities [states and locals, FLEOA, FBIAA] that raised concerns about the warrant-for-content amendment that Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) championed and that the companies and privacy organizations who signed this letter supported as well as civil rights organizations. Law enforcement officers do critically important work to fight crime, and electronic evidence is important to their investigations.  Their views carry great weight. But, some of the concerns raised in their letters are simply not raised by the legislation.

For example, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association speculated that legislation requiring a warrant for content in criminal investigations could effect the standard for pen registers, trap and trace devices, and National Security Letters in intelligence investigations, none of which can even be used to obtain content. Six state and local law enforcement agencies argued that the bill should be amended to give law enforcement the power to “freeze” electronic evidence in place while a warrant for the evidence is sought. But they ignored the provision of ECPA that already gives law enforcement this authority, without meeting any standard and without judicial authorization - 18 USC 2704. We responded to this, and to other concerns raised by state and local law enforcement, in this letter.

Understanding the concerns of law enforcement is absolutely critical to advancing the goals of privacy, security, and business innovation. We are committed to continuing to work with law enforcement entities, former law enforcement officials, providers of communication service and congressional staff to understand and address law enforcement concerns as ECPA reform legislation moves forward.

View the original article here

ECPA Amendment Adopted Despite Flurry of Law Enforcement Letters

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment that would require law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant in order to access the contents of email and other personal and proprietary electronic communications. The warrant-for-content amendment to the Senate version of H.R. 2471 would update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which currently extends the warrant requirement only to email 180 days old or less, and does not protect documents stored “in the cloud” by remote computing services. The Committee is expected to take up the bill again when it returns after the November elections.

The vote is particularly significant because it comes in face of a flurry of letters from law enforcement entities [states and locals, FLEOA, FBIAA] that raised concerns about the warrant-for-content amendment that Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) championed and that the companies and privacy organizations who signed this letter supported as well as civil rights organizations. Law enforcement officers do critically important work to fight crime, and electronic evidence is important to their investigations.  Their views carry great weight. But, some of the concerns raised in their letters are simply not raised by the legislation.

For example, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association speculated that legislation requiring a warrant for content in criminal investigations could effect the standard for pen registers, trap and trace devices, and National Security Letters in intelligence investigations, none of which can even be used to obtain content. Six state and local law enforcement agencies argued that the bill should be amended to give law enforcement the power to “freeze” electronic evidence in place while a warrant for the evidence is sought. But they ignored the provision of ECPA that already gives law enforcement this authority, without meeting any standard and without judicial authorization - 18 USC 2704. We responded to this, and to other concerns raised by state and local law enforcement, in this letter.

Understanding the concerns of law enforcement is absolutely critical to advancing the goals of privacy, security, and business innovation. We are committed to continuing to work with law enforcement entities, former law enforcement officials, providers of communication service and congressional staff to understand and address law enforcement concerns as ECPA reform legislation moves forward.

View the original article here

ECPA Amendment Adopted Despite Flurry of Law Enforcement Letters

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment that would require law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant in order to access the contents of email and other personal and proprietary electronic communications. The warrant-for-content amendment to the Senate version of H.R. 2471 would update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which currently extends the warrant requirement only to email 180 days old or less, and does not protect documents stored “in the cloud” by remote computing services. The Committee is expected to take up the bill again when it returns after the November elections.

The vote is particularly significant because it comes in face of a flurry of letters from law enforcement entities [states and locals, FLEOA, FBIAA] that raised concerns about the warrant-for-content amendment that Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) championed and that the companies and privacy organizations who signed this letter supported as well as civil rights organizations. Law enforcement officers do critically important work to fight crime, and electronic evidence is important to their investigations.  Their views carry great weight. But, some of the concerns raised in their letters are simply not raised by the legislation.

For example, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association speculated that legislation requiring a warrant for content in criminal investigations could effect the standard for pen registers, trap and trace devices, and National Security Letters in intelligence investigations, none of which can even be used to obtain content. Six state and local law enforcement agencies argued that the bill should be amended to give law enforcement the power to “freeze” electronic evidence in place while a warrant for the evidence is sought. But they ignored the provision of ECPA that already gives law enforcement this authority, without meeting any standard and without judicial authorization - 18 USC 2704. We responded to this, and to other concerns raised by state and local law enforcement, in this letter.

Understanding the concerns of law enforcement is absolutely critical to advancing the goals of privacy, security, and business innovation. We are committed to continuing to work with law enforcement entities, former law enforcement officials, providers of communication service and congressional staff to understand and address law enforcement concerns as ECPA reform legislation moves forward.

View the original article here

CDT Weighs in on Copyright Enforcement Strategy

The Administration's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) is expected to release its new "Joint Strategic Plan" by the end of this year.  Responding to the IPEC's request for comments from the public to assist with developing the new plan, CDT has submitted its recommendations.

The plan faces a substantial challenge in the wake of the bruising battle and public uprising over PIPA and SOPA:  namely, the widespread public perception that the Federal Government's approach to copyright serves a narrow set of corporate interests and ignores important competing values. This colors the debate over copyright policy and, ultimately, threatens to further erode public respect for copyright itself.  That's a risk that copyright holders and enforcers need to take seriously, because dwindling respect for copyright can fuel high levels of infringement, creating a vicious cycle.

What can the Federal Government do about this challenge?  Well, at a minimum, it can ensure that its approach to copyright enforcement and policy is forthright, fair, and respectful of other interests.  As we explain in our comments, that means taking care to fully assess collateral impacts; establishing guidelines and procedures to minimize the risk of collateral damage, especially with respect to domain name seizures; allowing much greater transparency in trade negotiations over copyright; and supporting affirmative initiatives or reforms that focus on the copyright regime from the point of view of Internet users or other stakeholders, rather than just the major copyright industries.

Our comments also recommend some core principles:  target enforcement carefully on true bad actors; don't call for new network-policing roles for Internet intermediaries; focus on effective and efficient use of existing legal tools, rather than calling for new ones; and set realistic goals.

Finally, our comments discuss the advantages and risks of trying to reduce copyright infringement through voluntary, collaborative efforts between copyright holders and other parties in the Internet ecosystem.  Actions that focus on educating users about copyright pose limited risks, since they generally won't cause significant harm even if applied in an overbroad or imprecise manner.  Actions that put private parties in the quasi-judicial role of imposing concrete sanctions are much more problematic, particularly when they are the product of an industry-wide or multi-party framework that arguably is a stand-in for government.  CDT recommends distinguishing between different kinds of voluntary action and emphasizing the importance of broad stakeholder participation and procedural safeguards.

We'll see how our recommendations fare.  Whether or not they find their way into the written strategy, however, we think our principles and recommendations have a key role to play in enabling copyright policy to chart a sound course that the public can accept and respect.

View the original article here