Forward.

Wait, but currently the fbi doesnt need warrants or subpoenas to access your information except for in three states.
The bill he penned granting security was never put to a vote. Aren't they simply making the protection ofbprivacu slightly weaker??

I'm really confused by the article. The bill was seen as too protective, so he's lessening it. It's still more protection than we currently have, isn't it?

Yeah it's true, currently fbi can read any stored emails without any notifocation at all.
This bill doesnt grant mORE power to the fbi, it sinply gives more power than it originally was written to give, which is a bill that hasn't even passed yet.

Chalk up another one to partisan politics and conspiracists.

1984.

The bill only affects email storage: online systems that fbi and other agencies already have afull access to.
Currently, the only thing protected by warrant is your outgoing email.
The bill does not change this.

The bill originally required a warrant for everything, bringing up your stored email to the same protections as outgoing mail. Now that stored mail requires a subpoena. It's a small increase in privacy, but it's an increase nonetheless.
Currently they can look at anything coming into your conputer.

Actually you're right. The more i'm reading this, it doesn't seem so horrific, even from alarmist articles.

Part and parcel of the confusion that surrounds policy, though.

This is just wrong, where is privacy if they do this and why are they so nosy? Government whoever they are, need to back away from the internet, that belongs to us, the people. No one organisation can own that