Reform to Require Warrant for Private Online Messages Up for Vote, but Down on Privacy
Mark M. Jaycox
EFF
The VPPA provides the strongest protections for privacy under any federal law. It requires users’ “informed, written consent…given at the time the disclosure is sought” when a video service provider wants to disclose a user’s request or purchase of any video. It also specifies that this information may only be disclosed to law enforcement with a warrant, court order, or grand jury subpoena, and insists on “probable cause to believe that the records or other information sought are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry” before a court order for disclosure may be issued.
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || ).push({});
Leahy’s changes to the VPPA allow for one-time advance consent—blanket sharing for any and all videos a user watches without any nuance as to with whom the user is sharing the information or over what exactly the user is giving up control. Some users may like to share the movies they watch with their friends, but the bill allows for companies to share these movies with predatory marketers like online behavioral advertising firms and data brokers.
The VPPA may not be the only casualty from Senator Leahy’s ECPA reform bill. The newest proposed changes would carve out a major exception to the warrant requirement. Leahy has stated he will not propose the recently released bill language, but the language is based off of amendments that Senator Grassley plans to offer. Under these changes, certain administrative agencies would be able to obtain emails without a search warrant, making compliance complex and burdensome for businesses. We are particularly uneasy with the proposed changes on ECPA reform because courts increasingly agree that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant before the government—whether law enforcement or administrative agencies—can access all of our digital communications.
Right now, we’re seeing a growing acceptance of the notion that the Fourth Amendment protects all emails from warrantless government searches. In one example of this, Senators and Representatives alike are pushing for change.
This year, Representatives Nadler and Lofgren introduced separate bills that require the government to obtain a warrant before reading private electronic messages, while Representatives
Markey and Chaffetz also introduced separate bills—the latter with twenty-six co-sponsors—that mandate law enforcement apply for a warrant before obtaining users’ locations through their electronic devices.
With the addition of Senator Leahy’s original language, many Member of Congress are clear: it’s time to update a law that is at issue with both the Fourth Amendment and users’ reasonable expectation of privacy.
var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;
linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’
/* */
/* */

