
 Unprecedented e-mail privacy bill sent to Texas governor’s desk - DiabloD3
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/unprecedented-e-mail-privacy-bill-sent-to-texas-governors-desk/
======
penland
For those that don't know Texas politics, the Senate and the House are roughly
divided into thirds -> 1/3 liberal democrat, 1/3 old school country club
moderate Republican, 1/3 Tea Party Republican. I can't think of a single non-
rules vote that received unanimous support among all three camps in the past
two legislative sessions. At no point in this bill's history ( committee
hearings, open house vote, open Senate vote ) did it ever earn a single nay.

You couldn't get that vote for a proclamation that cancer is bad ( someone
would vote against it because its a waste of time ).

------
linuxhansl
"The proposed legislation requires state law enforcement agencies to get a
warrant for all e-mails regardless of the age of the e-mail."

How is it possible that this is not the case everywhere in the USA. An email
does not somehow become less private only because it is older. This is the
sort of loop hole that politician and law enforcement weasels create to
undermine the privacy of communication.

I am generally fine with wire-tapping if (and only if) a warrant was obtained
first. If that does not happen there is no separation of the three powers, and
you cannot really speak of the "rule of law".

~~~
adventured
The curious thing about this, is it was the case that you needed a warrant -
at the state level - to access email. Such was true for two decades (predating
the Web). As a state authority, you stood no chance in hell of getting email
records turned over to you without a warrant, until the last four or five
years.

Email providers became very pliant toward handing over whatever was requested,
first with the Feds, then it trickled down. Email providers and ISPs also
decided not to specifically fight for strong privacy legislation (insert
comment about being the product if you're not paying for email).

The Feds gave up on warrants and got what they wanted through technology
mostly, forcing the hands of the telecoms by threat; they simply stopped
asking and just took what they wanted. For the Feds it made sense to them to
stop using warrants because of the scale involved. It set a strong precedent
for violating civil rights that some states are following.

~~~
_pmf_
> Email providers became very pliant toward handing over whatever was
> requested, first with the Feds, then it trickled down.

It helps that the outrage of customers (affected and non-affected) usually
does not go as far as to cancel their services with ISPs, given that it is
often the only one available.

~~~
wnight
Especially with mobile, where the government parcels out the ability to play
(spectrum) to the companies that cooperate with it.

At least in areas without natural monopolies you _can_ shop around.

------
char610
Of course Gov. Perry wants email privacy -
[http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-
pol...](http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/ut-
regent-grilled-on-perry-emails/nXrR9/)

He's had problems with it in the past.

------
macspoofing
Sad that it only applies to State authorities, and not Federal (where it's
really needed).

------
duaneb
Really, this sort of thing should be out of the hands of laws. We need a user-
to-user encryption replacement for email already! If I see the words 'gpg'
it's failed.

~~~
pyre
So, if I use GPG, but call it Uncle Al's Bargain Basement Email Privacy
Dohickey, then it's ok?

~~~
comex
Only if you get Honest Achmed to sign your GPG key. [1]

[1] <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647959>

------
lsiebert
I wonder if other states will use the bill as a model. I know texas and CA
bills are often used by other states as models for drafting legislation.

------
mosqutip
Texas? Texas is the first state that acts on this?

Color me surprised.

~~~
jrockway
It's the Republicans that want a small government and the Democrats that want
a police state. It's just hard to remember that when all the non-crazy
politicians are Democrats and the Republicans spend 90% of their time starting
wars and arguing about whether it should be mandatory to say "under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance.

~~~
u2328
Bullshit! Republicans like to forget, but the Bush Administration can't be so
easily hidden. It was the Bush Administration that started the TSA, indefinite
detentions at Guantanamo, the indefinite AUMF, the Yoo Torture Memos, the
drone programs, the "Patriot Act" and NSA spying, not to mention other big
government programs like "No Child Left Behind" and the unfunded Medicare Part
D. Don't get me wrong; there are big, legitimate criticisms of the Obama
Administration too, but don't let that "small government" rhetoric from the
Republicans fool you. The GOP only wants small government when they're not in
power.

~~~
adventured
The Bush Admin is worthy of just about any and all criticism one could muster.
However, the domestic spying programs predate the Bush Administration. And
it's worth noting, the Democrats have in no way been against the Patriot Act,
in fact they've been very strongly in favor of it (which is why it wasn't
killed during the super majority years).

For example, Carnivore came into existence under President Clinton:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_%28software%29>

And there has always been suspicion of domestic abuse of Echelon by the NSA
(and that program obviously dates back many decades).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON>

The only thing that began to change during the Bush years, is domestic spying
came out into the open, with very little public resistance unfortunately.

Your note about the GOP is accurate, they abuse power when they're in control
just like the Democrats do. For example, it could be similarly said that the
Democrats are only in favor of protecting civil liberties when they're the
minority party (ie when it's convenient).

------
wittysense
What happens in Vegas, ends in Texas.

