March 17, 2025

Senate Committee Approves Stricter Privacy for E-Mail

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a bill that would strengthen privacy protection for e-mails by requiring law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant from a judge in most cases before gaining access to messages in individual accounts stored electronically.

The bill is not expected to make it through Congress this year and will be the subject of negotiations next year with the Republican-led House. But the Senate panel’s approval was a first step toward an overhaul of a 1986 law that governs e-mail access that is widely seen as outdated.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the committee, was an architect of the 1986 law and is leading the effort to remake it. He said at the meeting Thursday that e-mails stored by third parties should receive the same protection as papers stored in a filing cabinet in an individual’s house.

“Like many Americans, I am concerned about the growing and unwelcome intrusions into our private lives in cyberspace,” Mr. Leahy said. “I also understand that we must update our digital privacy laws to keep pace with the rapid advances in technology.”

Mr. Leahy held a hearing about two years ago on whether and how to update the 1986 law, called the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. But the effort has moved slowly, in part because some law enforcement officials have opposed restricting an investigative tool that has become increasingly used.

Under the law, authorities need to obtain a search warrant from a judge – requiring them to meet the high standard of showing that there is probable cause to believe that a subject is engaged in wrongdoing – only when they want to read e-mails that have not yet been opened by their recipient and that are fewer than 180 days old.

But the law gives less protection to messages that a recipient has read and left in his or her account. In some cases, officials may obtain a court order for such material merely by telling a judge facts suggesting that there is reason to believe they are “relevant” to an investigation, and in other cases prosecutors can issue a subpoena demanding the materials without any court involvement.

Senator Leahy’s bill would generally require prosecutors to obtain a search warrant from a judge, under the stricter probable-cause standard, to compel a provider to turn over e-mails and other private documents.

The Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for electronic privacy rights, hailed the committee vote as “historic.” In a statement, Gregory T. Nojeim said it “sets the stage for updating the law to reflect the reality of how people use technology in their daily lives. It keeps the government from turning cloud providers into a one-stop convenience store for government investigators and requires government investigators to do for online communications what they already do in the offline world: get a warrant before reading postal letters or searching our homes.”

Still, the ranking Republican on the committee, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, argued that the bill does not strike the proper balance between privacy and public safety. He expressed concerns that changing the standard of proof for obtaining e-mails would inhibit certain investigations, such as child pornography or child abduction cases.

Mr. Leahy argued that the bill does not alter criminal and antiterrorism laws related to search warrants, including exceptions in emergencies where time is of the essence. But he also said the bill was a starting point and he was open to further negotiations. The panel approved it by a voice vote.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/technology/senate-committee-approves-stricter-privacy-for-e-mail.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Germany Investigating Facebook Tagging Feature

BERLIN — A German regulator said Wednesday that he had asked Facebook to disable its new photo-tagging software, saying he was concerned that its facial recognition feature amounted to the unauthorized collection of data on individuals.

Johannes Caspar, the data protection supervisor in Hamburg, who has been aggressive in investigating the online practices of companies like Google and Apple, warned that the feature could violate European privacy laws.

The software, called “suggested automatic tagging,” lets Facebook users assign digital name tags to people in their photographs. Photos that are uploaded later are scanned for physical features and can be tagged and stored.

In a letter sent Tuesday, Mr. Caspar said he had asked Facebook to disable the feature in Germany and respond in two weeks to his concerns. Under German law, the regulator could fine Facebook, which is based in Menlo Park, Calif., up to 300,000 euros ($429,000).

Mr. Caspar also confirmed that the European Commission’s data privacy advisory panel would determine whether tagging itself violated a user’s privacy. Mr. Caspar said he was coordinating his investigation with Jacob Kohnstamm, the chairman of the panel and the Dutch data protection authority.

Through a spokesman, Facebook rejected the regulator’s claim, saying the tagging feature, which gives the person in the photograph the final right to accept, reject or remove a tag, conforms with the European privacy law.

“We will consider the points the Hamburg Data Protection Authority have made about the photo tag suggest feature but firmly reject any claim that we are not meeting our obligations under European Union data protection law,” said a Facebook spokesman in Berlin, who declined to be identified, citing Facebook’s company policy on not identifying its representatives.

The dispute is the latest between leading American technology companies and European privacy regulators, especially in Germany, over the privacy ramifications raised by social networking, online mapping and location services tied to mobile advertising.

Last year, Google apologized to privacy officials around the world, and paid some fines, after it was revealed that Google’s roving Street View mapping vehicles were also collecting private data from unencrypted Wi-Fi routers.

The disclosure was made during a German inquiry led by Mr. Caspar. Google attributed the systematic, unauthorized collection of individual data to a programmer’s error.

Apple, the maker of the iPhone, came under scrutiny in April in Germany after a computer expert revealed that the iPhone was compiling logs of user locations. The inquiry, which was led by privacy officials in Bavaria, was closed in June after Apple agreed to redesign the feature to address German privacy concerns, said Thomas Kranig, the head of the Bavarian data protection agency.

Mr. Kranig, in an interview, said Apple had attributed the unauthorized data collection to a programmer’s error and had redesigned iPhone software to give Germans the option to allow collection of location data.

In July 2010, Mr. Caspar started an investigation into Facebook over its Friends Finder feature, which allows Facebook to copy names and details from a user’s e-mail address book to find friends who are also on Facebook. Mr. Caspar said Facebook, besides finding friends, was also identifying non-Facebook users culled from the lists with solicitations to join its network.

That inquiry was closed, Mr. Caspar said, after Facebook agreed to change the Friends Finder application to let anyone contacted through the function decide in advance whether their data could be used by Facebook.

Despite its run-ins with privacy officials, Facebook has continued to grow in Germany, where it has more than 20 million users who log in at least once a month.

In a statement Tuesday, Mr. Caspar said that Facebook had built an archive of more than 75 billion photos, and 450 million people have been tagged worldwide.

“If they are collecting the data to build a digital archive of individual faces, then this is clearly a violation,” Mr. Caspar said.

The Facebook representative in Berlin said Facebook did not permanently store data on individual faces, but could also not say how long Facebook kept the data.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ccfdeb8fd29f284fd0098a804740f8ac