Showing posts with label Ted Poe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ted Poe. Show all posts

Friday, December 16, 2016

BIPARTISAN HOUSE COALITION PRESSES CLAPPER FOR INFORMATION ON PHONE & EMAIL SURVEILLANCE


Washington, DC – Today, a bipartisan group of ten members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee—including Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), and former Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), wrote to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to memorialize the Director’s commitment to provide a detailed look at how the government’s phone and email surveillance affects United States citizens.  The intelligence community has promised to provide a public estimate of that impact “early enough to inform the debate” on surveillance reform in the next Congress, with a target date of January 2017.

The letter was signed by Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Darrell E. Issa (R-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Ted Poe (R-TX), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (D-GA), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Suzan K. DelBene (D-WA) and David N. Cicilline (D-RI).
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Bipartisan, bicameral bill would delay changes to government hacking powers

File:Seal of the United States Congress.svg

Proposed Amendments to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure would expand the government’s ability to search Americans’ computers and other digital devices
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.), together with Reps. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Ted Poe (R-Texas), introduced legislation to provide Congress the time necessary to seriously consider and debate the proposed changes to Rule 41 that would expand the government's ability to search computers and other digital devices. The Review the Rule Actwould delay the proposed changes to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 from going into force until July 1, 2017. Without congressional action, the proposed changes will go into effect on December 1, 2016.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 governs the procedures and parameters for issuing search warrants.  Under current law, a federal judge may issue a warrant to search property located within a specific judicial district.  At the urging of the Department of Justice, the Supreme Court ultimately approved two sweeping amendments to Rule 41:

1.       A judge may issue a warrant to remotely search, copy, and seize information from a device that does not have a known location (and may not be in the district) because the location has been concealed through technological means; and
2.       A single judge may issue a warrant to remotely search and copy information from suspected devices across five or more districts.
Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
“I remain deeply concerned about the intended and unintended consequences of the expanded authorities contemplated in the proposed changes to Rule 41,” said John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member. “The bill we offer today will delay implementation until Congress has had a meaningful opportunity to examine the proposal in detail.  Until we have adequately addressed the privacy concerns raised by my colleagues, this rule change should not take effect.”     

“The proposed changes are serious, and present significant privacy concerns that warrant careful consideration and debate,” said Senator Coons, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Our bicameral, bipartisan legislation will give Congress time to do our job and carefully consider and evaluate the merits of these proposed changes to the government’s ability to search personal computers and other digital devices. It is essential that these rules strike a careful balance: giving law enforcement the tools it needs to keep us safe, while also protecting Americans’ constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches.”

“We cannot give the federal government a blank check to infringe on Americans’ civil liberties,” said Senator Daines.“Congress needs the appropriate time to investigate the implications of this rule on Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights.”

“A single prosecutor should not have the power to hack into the phone or computer of virtually anyone in the United States,” said Senator Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Yes, federal law enforcement does need new tools to stop and prosecute botnets, but the proposed Rule 41 rule change goes too far. The sensible thing to do is delay the implementation of this rule and allow Congress to investigate further."

“This rule change would give the government unprecedented power to hack into Americans’ personal devices,”Senator Wyden said. “This was an alarming proposition before the election. Today, Congress needs to think long and hard about whether to hand this power to James Comey and the administration of someone who openly said he wants the power to hack his political opponents the same way Russia does.”      

“Government does not have the authority to unilaterally legalize widespread abusive hacking,” said Rep. Poe.  “It is Congress’ responsibility to safeguard the constitutional rights of the people they represent from a power hungry Executive Branch. A delay in the proposed changes to Rule 41 is necessary to ensure that the newly elected Congress, and Administration, have the ability to carefully evaluate this rule change before it goes into effect to ensure that it is constitutional and in the best interests of the American people. Rushing to put the changes in place in the middle of the lame duck session is irresponsible. Too much is at stake to not get this right.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Bipartisan Coalition Presses DOJ About Government Hacking


The United States Congress
File:Seal of the United States House of Representatives.svg
File:Alternative Senate seal.svg


Lawmakers Seek Answers About How Government Would Use New Hacking Authority, One Month Before Rule 41 Amendments Would Take Effect

Washington, D.C. –A bipartisan coalition of Senate and House lawmakers today asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to provide Congress with more information about a proposed expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Judiciary Committee member Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich., and senior Judiciary Committee member Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, led a bipartisan group of 23 lawmakers asking for more information about the proposal, formally known as amendments to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal ProcedureUnless Congress acts, these new amendments are scheduled to go into effect on December 1.

“We are concerned about the full scope of the new authority that would be provided to the Department of Justice,” the lawmakers wrote. “We believe that Congress -- and the American public -- must better understand the Department’s need for the proposed amendments, how the Department intends to use its proposed new powers, and the potential consequences to our digital security before these rules go into effect.”

 The lawmakers ask DOJ a number of questions about how Rule 41 will be used, including:
  • How the government intends to prevent forum shopping by prosecutors seeking court approval to hack into Americans' devices;
  • How the government will prevent collateral damage to innocent Americans' devices and electronic data when it remotely search devices such as smartphones or medical devices;
  • Whether the government intends to use this new authority to search and “clean” Americans' computers ;
  • How the government will maintain a chain of custody when searching or removing evidence from a device;
  • How the government will notify Americans who are the subjects of remote government searches.
The letter was also signed by: Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah., Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, June 9, 2016

CONYERS & POE LEAD BIPARTISAN HOUSE COALITION TO STOP GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE AND HACKING


WASHINGTON, D.C.Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) and Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) along with Congressman Blake Fahrenthold (R-TX) and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced H.R. 5321 the Stop Mass Hacking Act. This is the companion bill to legislation introduced on the Senate side by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY). The Department of Justice has recently moved to make an administrative rule change to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that would give the government the ability to hack the computers of a massive amount of American citizens just by obtaining a single warrant.  If Congress does not act by December 1, 2016, this change will be in effect. The Stop Massive Hacking Act prevents these changes to Rule 41 from going into effect.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr/
“I stand by the Stop Mass Hacking Act because I am not yet convinced that the proposed changes to Rule 41 are wise or necessary,” said Rep. Conyers. “This rule change is designed to streamline investigative techniques that allow law enforcement to gain unauthorized access and control to remote computer systems.  Until Congress has had an opportunity to examine this proposal in detail—and until we have adequately addressed the privacy concerns raised by my colleagues—this rule change should not take effect.”

“Government does not have the authority to unilaterally legalize widespread government hacking,” said Rep. Poe.  “Americans have rights. It is Congress’ responsibility to safeguard the constitutional rights of the people they represent from a power hungry Executive Branch. As such, we are moving to stop this change that condones hacking the property of the very people we are entrusted to protect.”

“This bill hits pause on a new rule which facilitates hacking of foreign entities and hijacking devices owned by the victims of malware attacks without their permission,” said Rep. Lofgren.  “These troubling activities, and the international, privacy, and security ramifications which may arise as a result, deserve serious deliberation and debate in Congress.”

“We’re in the midst right now of one of the biggest battles in the privacy world that we have faced,” saidRep Farenthold. “Because of the horrendous terrorist attacks we’ve witnessed, there’s a willingness to give up some of our freedoms and privacy in order to feel safe. That’s completely understandable, but if we keep down this path, we’re going to wake up in a few years in George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ This is why, as we fight for security, the intrusion on privacy
necessary to fight the war on terror needs to be narrowly tailored and aggressively overseen.”

“Representatives Poe, Conyers, Farenthold and Lofgren are leading the fight to protect Americans’ freedoms by introducing the Stopping Mass Hacking Act in the House of Representatives,” said Senator Wyden. “They’re proof that a growing, bipartisan coalition agrees that this expansion of the government’s hacking and surveillance authority simply goes too far.”

Stop Mass Hacking Act Summary by Beverly Tran



Read a one-page bill text of the Stopping Mass Hacking (SMH) Act.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Lawmakers to oppose spending bill over cyber language

Lawmakers to oppose spending bill over cyber language

A small group of lawmakers will vote against the sweeping omnibus spending deal because of the inclusion of a cybersecurity bill.
“I just think it’s very troubling,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) told The Hill. “The bill should not be in the omnibus. It’s a surveillance bill more than a cyber bill.”
“I’m going to vote against the omnibus as a consequence,” she added.
The cyber bill would encourage businesses to share more data on hackers with the government.
“There’s plenty wrong with this omnibus, but there's nothing more egregious than the cyber language they secretly slipped in,” Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) told The Hill by email.
Proponents of the bill say the the decision to attach was necessary to avoid further delays on much-needed legislation. A broad swath of lawmakers, many industry groups and the White House support the measure as a critical first step to help the country better respond to cyberattacks.
“This is the most protective of privacy of any cyber bill that we have advanced and we need to keep in mind the overriding interest all Americans have in protecting their privacy from these innumerable hacks,” Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a cosponsor of his panel’s cyber bill, told The Hill. “Our privacy is being violated every day. And the longer we delay on measures like this, the more we subject ourselves to those kind of intrusions into our privacy.”
But privacy groups and civil liberties advocates have warned the bill will could shuttle more of Americans’ personal data to the National Security Agency (NSA).
Lofgren and Amash were two of the four lawmakers who signed a letter Tuesday expressing frustration at how lawmakers had merged three bills to create the final version, which was released overnight as part of the $1.15 trillion omnibus spending bill.
Lawmakers have been working on the cyber language the Senate passed its Intelligence Committee-originated bill in October. The House passed its two complementary bills in April: one from that chamber's Intelligence panel and another from Homeland Security.
But rather than conduct a more formal conference between the two chambers, lawmakers relied on unofficial discussions to produce the compromise text, due to some disagreements between the House and Senate over the conference process and the unusual need to combine three bills.
Lofgren and Amash joined Reps. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) on the letter that denounced this process.
“Neither negotiations — nor even bill text — have been made public,” they said. “We cannot cast such a consequential vote with no input.”
A spokesman for Polis said the tactic heavily contributed to the lawmaker’s decision to vote against the omnibus.
“There are several provisions in the bill that concern him, but the last-minute addition of the cybersecurity bill is one of the most serious,” said the representative in an email.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the other cosponsor of his committee’s bill, told The Hill that several senators had threatened to permanently stall an official conference.
“Then you have a dead process,” he said. “And you have cyberattacks occurring.”
“You’ve got to attach it to something,” said House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who cosponsored his panel’s bill. “We were not able to get a conference on the bill itself, so this is a vehicle. That’s how I see it.”
Schiff acknowledged that the process wasn’t perfect. But it was the best path under the circumstances, he said.
“In an ideal world we wouldn’t have omnibuses, but I think after three years of working to move this issue forward we were fortunate to get on the train that’s moving,” he told The Hill.
Late Wednesday, Lofgren sent a follow-up letter to her colleagues detailing objections to the actual text.
“What was intended to be a cybersecurity bill to facilitate the sharing of information between the private sector and government was instead drafted in such a way that it has effectively become a surveillance bill, and allows information shared by companies to be used by the government to prosecute unrelated crimes,” the letter reads.
Amash, Polis signed the letter, as did Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Blake Farenthold (R-Texas).
The bill's backers have aggressively pushed back against these claims, pointing to myriad privacy clauses and anti-surveillance language in the text.
But these protests are shared by a small and vocal contingent of privacy- and civil liberties-minded lawmakers on both the left and the right.
Whether the group unites under their cyber bill opposition to try to stall the omnibus is less clear.
“A number of members have talked to me about it,” Lofgren said. “They’re concerned about it, but they have to weigh the other elements of the [omnibus], which I understand.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, the upper chamber’s leading critic of its cyber bill, is a prime example.
The Oregon Democrat has vowed to fight or alter the cyber bill using every means possible. But as the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Wyden will be forced to consider his cyber opposition against numerous other provisions he may support.
Wyden’s office said the lawmaker had not yet decided how he would vote on the omnibus.
Amash encouraged his colleagues to stand with him.
“A vote for the omnibus is a vote to support unconstitutional surveillance on all Americans,” he said. “It's probably the worst anti-privacy vote in Congress since the Patriot Act.”
The bill’s backers don’t believe this cyber opposition is enough to derail the entire omnibus.
“I hear there are a lot of issues around the omnibus, but I have not heard that cyber is one of them,” Thompson said.
“I think there are much bigger fish to fry in the omnibus in terms of what people are concerned about,” Schiff agreed, citing controversial oil provisions.
Nunes thinks the cyber bill has given omnibus critics an easy out to explain their opposition.
“The appropriate question to ask people complaining about this is, ‘So let’s pull out cyber, you going to vote for the omnibus?’” he said.
“I think I know the answer.”
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©