Unprecedented e-mail privacy bill sent to Texas governor’s desk | Hacker News Reader

Unprecedented e-mail privacy bill sent to Texas governor’s desk

arstechnica.com

88 pointsDiabloD337 comments

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 ).

"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".

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.

> 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.

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.

Of course Gov. Perry wants email privacy - http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-pol...

He's had problems with it in the past.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Color me surprised.

"True Republicans" tend to have their base in a smaller government and more protection against governmental intrusion. This being the biggest Republican state fits perfectly, especially in a political atmosphere that is railing against the current administration's recent transgressions in the area of personal privacy (i.e. AP snooping).

This is a fallacious comment of the No True Scotsman type.

No it's not. "True Republicans" was in quotes. Republicans are supposed to be for smaller government in theory. In practice they sometimes seem "small enough to fit in the bedroom".

Is this a joke? Have you ever heard of John Cornyn, US Senator for Texas? He'd wiretap your grandmother and collect DNA samples from your dog if he could.

None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead -- John Cornyn, in support of reauthorization of the PATRIOT act

You don't follow state politics much, do you?

Quoting a US Senator on a bill that was supported by both national parties isn't very relevant here.

Yes, but Monsanto now own the copyright to your DNA, not you nor your quite lovely and deeply loyal dog.

You are merely the current instance of your DNA.

[ By implication, you do not have the right to clone yourself and Terence, but big M do. To learn more, see section 23.II.XIV.12.3 of the EULA ]

Get out of the liberal echosphere every now and then and you'll find your ability to predict reality increases.

That is both unnecessary and uncalled for. Besides, as a Texan, I'm also equivalently shocked that the Legislature managed to pull this off, especially without a single "no" vote anywhere in the process.

I am going to enjoy watching TX flip Blue as more young, urban, and Latino voters register Democrat. It might even happen in 2016.

links: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2013/05/28/2058031/texas-d...

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/could-hillary-clinton-turn...

While the math may turn out that way, your sources aren't reliable given their perspective and extreme bias (both articles rely heavily on weak speculation and their emotional desire to see it happen).

It's like listening to Fox News call the election for Romney.

Yeah... I've actually lived in Texas. But you just keep on believing whatever makes you feel intelligent.

Texas may be pro business, but it is reliably anti-big government too.

Not at all. The state government of Texas IS a big government, and they gather more and more power

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.

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.

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).

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party (the national versions -- the RNC and DNC) are both in favor of big government and a police state. Big government accrues power, and even though the parties only get to time-share the government, a time-share of a big government lets them do more than they could with a time-share of a smaller government. Full fledged support of small government would be suicide; they simply talk it up when it helps them get elected. There's a lot of political machinery supporting the parties and the government at the size they are today. Reduce government, and some of that human machinery becomes unemployed. Some of those people who would be unemployed are the people setting party, and government, policy.

There are exceptions on both sides. Some Democrats have a philosophy that's sort of socially aware quasi-libertarianism (Senators from Oregon and Vermont come to mind). There are also libertarian-flavor "less-government" Republicans; Ron Paul being the canonical example. The Republican libertarians tend to go more for small government -- unless your social habits violate their social norms, in which case you're a criminal -- while the Democrat libertarians tend to go for medium government, but they are, or at least try to be, against a police state.

Ron Paul is a canonical example of a States' Rights politician, which isn't "less-government" at all. It's just taking more power for the state governments. The roots of this are not in Libertarianism but in the Confederacy.

And even so, Ron Paul isn't really liked by the rest of his party.

Democrats want a police state? That's an outrageous assertion that has no basis in reality what so ever. Keep your non-constructive partisan political comments to yourself.

I believe OP was ironic, quoting a cliche for both parties and then showing that repubblicans promote actions that have little to do with "small government" (i.e. wars and enforcing state wide religious positions), while saying that 90% of the democrats are sane.

Your misparsing of the comment is a good example why politically heated comments should be avoided in discussions like this.

Actually the republicans give lip service to small government but they are the ones who's actions indicate a desire for a police state (e.g. TSA, Patriot Act, etc.). Democrats are just a less extreme-right (but still right wing) version of the same thing.

I was surprised as well.

In an alternate universe where Rick Perry had won the primaries and presidency, I wonder if he would have strong support for this bill as president.

[edit, still playing political fantasy] Actually, now would be a good time for Senator Cruz to take a similar bill to the Senate. It would die, of course, but at least he would score some points with internet people (like Daryl Issa did during SOPA) with minimal investment of political capital on his part.

Texas state politics aren't big on transparency, especially those involving the current Governor.

I'd like to believe though...

What happens in Vegas, ends in Texas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com