Saturday, February 24 , 2018, 10:15 pm | Fair 50º

 
 
 
 

Veronique de Rugy: Digital Privacy Shouldn’t Depend on Law Written in Time of ‘Stranger Things’

One of the most powerful arguments for limiting the size and scope of government is the inability of politicians and regulators to keep up with the pace of technological change.

Case in point: Congress has not updated the rules regulating when and how law enforcement may access stored online data since the time period depicted in Netflix’s 1980s nostalgia-heavy hit Stranger Things.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed in 1986, when data storage was considerably more expensive and primitive. At the time, it was not common for data to be kept online for very long.

As such, the ECPA considers emails held online by a third party for more than 180 days to be abandoned and thus open to access by law enforcement without a normal warrant. Sure puts that cluttered inbox in a new light, doesn’t it?

Now that free online email hosts are commonplace and terabytes of cloud storage are available at little cost, the ECPA is a troubling anachronism. Today’s internet users expect their data to be protected from prying government eyes for as long as they choose to store it.

There are additional reasons driving the need for data access reform. One was clearly demonstrated in July, when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rebuked the Justice Department after a three-year legal battle with Microsoft, which hosted data for an Irish citizen being pursued by U.S. authorities.

The data was being kept in a server located in Ireland, yet the U.S. government insisted it had jurisdiction to demand access just because the company that held it is a subsidiary of Microsoft, an American corporation.

The government sought to use a warrant that was issued pursuant to a statute under the ECPA, which provides no authority for access to data held overseas.

The government officials most likely made this overreach rather than go through the mutual legal assistance treaty, or MLAT, process — which would have enabled them to work with the appropriate overseas authority — because of the fact that MLAT procedures are also cumbersome and outdated.

There is a bill making its way through Congress that attempts to address these issues. It’s the International Communications Privacy Act.

The bipartisan bill — introduced by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Chris Coons, D-Del., and Dean Heller, R-Nev. — presents significant changes meant to reduce the temptation for law enforcement to overstep its bounds as it did against Microsoft by making MLATs viable options through greater transparency and accountability.

More importantly, if implemented, it would codify into law a simple and clear standard: A warrant should always be required to access private information from a third party.

The reforms in the ICPA would move us away from the current ’80s drama. It also seems that the package could even move through Congress during a contentious election season because it safeguards consumer data while also acknowledging that there must be legitimate and accessible law enforcement tools to pursue digital evidence across borders.

Businesses that operate or store data in multiple jurisdictions would also benefit from clearer rules regarding their users’ expectations of privacy and avoid unnecessary and costly legal battles.

No one really disputes that it’s time to update the ECPA, and the ICPA has support from key leadership figures from both parties.

That said, if legislators were known for their swift action, the law would never have been allowed to become so outdated in the first place.

— Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a columnist for Reason magazine and the Washington Examiner, and blogs about ecomomics for National Review. Click here to contact her, and follow her on Twitter: @veroderugy. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click here to get started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.



Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >