The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 is enacted by the United States Congress to extend government restrictions on cable connections from phone calls to entering electronic data transmission by computer (18 USCÃ, 2510 et seq. ), adds a new provision that prohibits access to stored electronic communications, namely, Stored Communications Act (SCA, 18 USCÃ, 2701 et seq. ), and adds so-called provisions of the trap that enable telephone communication tracking (18 USCÃ, 3121 et seq. ). ECPA is an amendment to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and the Safe Street Act of 1968 (Statet Wiretap), which is primarily designed to prevent unauthorized government access to private electronic communications. ECPA has been amended by the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) 1994, USA PATRIOT Act (2001), authoritarian actions of PATRIOT USA (2006), and the FISA Amendments Act (2008).
Video Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Ikhtisar
"Electronic communication" means the transfer of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical systems affecting interstate or foreign trade, including the following:
- Wire or oral communication
- Communication is done through a paging-only device
- Communications from the tracking device (as defined in section 3117)
- Electronic funds transfer information deposited by financial institutions in the communication system used for electronic storage and funds transfer
The Title I of ECPA protects wire, verbal, and electronic communications while on the move. This sets requirements for stricter search warrants than in other settings. Title II of ECPA, Stored Communications Act (SCA), protects communications stored in electronic storage, especially messages stored on the computer. However, its protection is weaker than Title I, and does not impose a higher standard to guarantee. Title III prohibits the use of pen registers and/or trapping and tracing devices to record calls, routing, addressing, and signaling information used in the process of wire transmission or electronic communication without a court order.
Maps Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Terms
ECPA extends government restrictions on the wire tap of telephone calls to include electronic data transmission by computer (18 USC Ã,  £ 2510 et seq. ), adding new provisions prohibiting access to stored electronic communications, ie , The Stored Communications Act (18 USCÃ, 2701 et seq. ), and adds so-called penalty provisions that enable telephone communication tracking (18 USC Ã,§Ã, 3121 et seq. ).
18 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã, 3123 (d) (2) provides a gag command that directs the receiver pen register or traps and tracks the device order not to reveal the existence of a pen/trap or investigation.
Employee privacy
ECPA extends the privacy protections provided by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (corporate monitoring of employee phone calls) to include electronic communications and cell phones as well. See also Employee Supervision and Workplace privacy .
Case law
Some court cases have raised the question of whether email messages are protected under more stringent Title I provisions while they are in temporary storage on the way to their final destination. In United States v. Board Members , the US District Court and the three-judge appeals panel decided that it was not, but in 2005, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed this opinion. Privacy advocates are relieved; they have argued in amicus curiae that if ECPA does not protect e-mails in temporary storage, its additional protection is meaningless since almost all electronic mail is temporarily stored in transit at least once and Congress will know this in 1986 when the law is passed. (see, e.g., RFC 822). The case was eventually dismissed for reasons unrelated to the ECPA issue.
Computer confiscation, used to operate electronic bulletin board systems, and contains personal electronic mail that has been sent to the bulletin board but not read (retrieved) by the intended recipient, is not an unlawful intercept under the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 USC s 2510, et seq., As amended by Title I of ECPA. The government can actually track the phone in real time without a search warrant under ECPA by analyzing information about the antenna contacted by the mobile phone, as long as the phone is used in a public place where visual surveillance is available.
In Robbins v. Lower Merion School District (2010), also known as "WebcamGate", the plaintiff alleges that two Philadelphia suburban schools violate ECPA by remote-activating laptop-installed webcam and school-exposed monitoring. students at home. The schools claim to secretly capture more than 66,000 photos and screenshots, including photos of the students' webcam in their bedroom.
Criticism
ECPA is criticized for failing to protect all consumer communications and records, especially since its laws are outdated and unrelated to the way people currently share, store, and use information.
Under ECPA, it is relatively easy for government agencies to require service providers to submit personal consumer data stored on service providers' servers. Emails stored on third-party servers for more than 180 days are considered by law to be abandoned. All that is required to obtain email content by law enforcement agencies is a written statement stating that the information is relevant to the investigation, without reconsideration. When the law was initially enacted, emails were stored on third-party servers only for a short period of time, long enough to facilitate the transfer of emails to consumer email clients, which were generally located on their personal computers or work. Now, with common online email services such as Gmail and Hotmail, users are more likely to store unlimited online mail instead of storing less than 180 days. If the same email is stored on a user's personal computer, it will require the police to obtain a warrant first to seize the contents, regardless of their age. When they are stored on an internet server, no warrant is required, starting 180 days after receiving the message, under the law. In 2013 members of the US Congress proposed to reform this procedure.
The ECPA also increases the list of crimes that justify the use of oversight and the number of judicial members who can authorize such control. Data can be obtained on the traffic and call patterns of an individual or group without a warrant, allowing agents to obtain valuable intelligence and possibly invade privacy without any supervision, since the actual communication content is untouched. While communication in the workplace is protected in theory, all that is required to gain access to the communiqué is for an employer to simply give notice or supervisor to feel that the employee's actions are not in the company's interest. This means that with minimal assumption, an employer can monitor communication within the company. The ongoing debate is where to limit the power of government to look to civilian life, while balancing the need to curb national threats.
In 2011, the New York Times published the "Privacy Act of 1986 Faster from the Web", highlighting that:
... The Justice Department argues in court that mobile users have submitted privacy expectations about their location by voluntarily providing that information to operators. In April, they argued in federal court in Colorado that they should have access to multiple e-mails without search warrants. And federal law enforcement officials, citing technological advances, are planning to ask for new rules that will smooth their ability to wiretap the law of various Internet communications.
The analysis continues to discuss how Google, Facebook, Verizon, Twitter, and other companies are in the midst of between users and governments.
References
See also
- Customer ownership network information (CPNI)
- Katz v. United States (1967)
- In DoubleClick re (2001)
- Path v. Facebook, Inc. (2010)
- United States v. Graham (2012)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments