[MeganC]

I suspect that this law is just codifying something they already do.

[dayglored]

Same topic, different source:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3434066/posts

[ClearCase_guy]

I self-identify as a high-ranking federal employee, so the FBI won’t be able to find my stuff — so I’m not worried.

[sargon]

Treason

[TexasGator]

It would be nice to know where in the bill it is authorized.

I word searched several different ways and could not find anything.

[drypowder]

Gee, the next thing the DC pukes will allow is for the ATF, FBI, IRS etc, to kick in our doors without a warrant and shoot our dogs, ourselves and family members. Oh, did I say next?

[Swordmaker]

The US Senate is considering a bill to allow the government to read all emails without requiring a search warrant in the interests of National Security. Good Bye Fourth Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

— PING!

Pinging Dayglored, ThunderSleeps, Shadow Ace for their tech lists for more government snooping over reach.

More Government Snooping to Be Authorized?
Ping!

The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me

[grania]

What do they need a separate bill for? Just sneak the provision into a bill for something totally unrelated.

(sarcasm)

[LostPassword]

Now courts and congress won’t have to look the other way and deny knowing what’s going on when asked. They can just say “it’s legal. don’t look at us to stop it”.

[Buckeye McFrog]

So they will know about all the Russian chicks who want to date me, about the Mexican pharmacies that want to sell me ED pills, and the deposed Nigerian Colonel who wants me to help him recover his bank account?

[Pollster1]

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Whether or not one can argue that this doesn’t quite violate the Fourth Amendment, it’s wrong. Our federal government should (1) follow the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and limit their actions to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and (2) avoid any actions that could be interpreted as violating the Bill of Rights, even if an alternate interpretation would permit those actions.

[lee martell]

I have always presumed the Secret Service or FBI or NSA or CIA or EPA or IRS or TSA ALREADY had full and free access to anything they wished to have about my past or about my present. This law may be an attempt to protect their agents from any litigation attempts.

[WKUHilltopper]

When do these people go to jail for violating their oaths to the Constitution?

[fella]

All this does is make legal what law enforcement ahs been doing all along.

[RevelationDavid]

From personal experience… I guarantee you, that the government already reads your emails.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

The Police State marches on. We have no privacy. 100 years from now we will have no rights.

[TigersEye]

In that case I’ll need a program that sends tens of thousands of emails to and from my email account daily. A private key can filter out the ones I want to read.

[SERE_DOC]

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.