The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO

Opinion

December 17, 2012

Other Views: Privacy needs protection

The way people communicate has changed dramatically in the digital age. The privacy protections people expect shouldn’t.

Most people would be surprised to know that law enforcement doesn’t need a search warrant signed by a judge to review a person’s emails or other electronic communications.

Under the 26-year-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a prosecutor need only file a subpoena in order to dig through people’s communications, if the files are more than 6 months old.

If you have letters, financial information or other communications on paper, filed in your desk drawer for six months, you would reasonably expect they are not fair game for law enforcement without a search warrant.

Simply because the same information is sitting on servers at Google, Facebook or Internet providers shouldn’t make them more easily available to investigators.

Fortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee is moving a bill to restore personal privacy protections.

Under the legislation, police would have to obtain a search warrant before they can review a person’s emails or other communications.

Law enforcement groups have resisted changing the law, saying it could harm criminal and national security investigations.

It would do nothing of the kind. Investigators would simply have to show a judge they have reasonable probable cause to believe someone has committed a crime and get a search warrant to investigate further.

And the law change would still allow law enforcement to collect other information with simply a subpoena signed by a prosecutor — such as obtaining routing data from third-party Internet providers that can identify the sender of an email and the location where the message was sent, without being able to read any of those emails.

When it reconvenes early next year, Congress should pass the legislation.  

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, enacted in 1791, aimed to limit government intrusions and searches. How people generate and store their personal communications may have changed astonishingly since then.

But the protections afforded by the amendment shouldn’t change.   

— The Free Press, Mankato, Minn.

1
Text Only
Opinion
Local News
Twitter Updates
Follow us on twitter
Poll

How do you plan to vote on Missouri's Amendment 5 on the Aug. 5 ballot?

A. For it.
B. Against it.
     View Results
Facebook
NDN Video
Texas Scientists Study Ebola Virus Smartphone Powered Paper Plane Debuts at Airshow Southern Accent Reduction Class Cancelled in TN Raw: Deadly Landslide Hits Indian Village Obama Chides House GOP for Pursuing Lawsuit New Bill Aims to Curb Sexual Assault on Campus Russia Counts Cost of New US, EU Sanctions 3Doodler Bring 3-D Printing to Your Hand Six PA Cops Indicted for Robbing Drug Dealers Britain Testing Driverless Cars on Roadways Raw: Thousands Flocking to German Crop Circle At Least 20 Chikungunya Cases in New Jersey Raw: Obama Eats Ribs in Kansas City In Virginia, the Rise of a New Space Coast Raw: Otters Enjoy Water Slides at Japan Zoo NCAA Settles Head-injury Suit, Will Change Rules Raw: Amphibious Landing Practice in Hawaii Raw: Weapons Fire Hits UN School in Gaza Raw: Rocket Launches Into Space With Cargo Ship Broken Water Main Floods UCLA
Sports