Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Ted Poe (R-Texas), and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) are pushing an amendment to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that would require a warrant for authorities to obtain any email, instead of allowing free access to messages older than six months.

I wrote in January about Google’s decision to require a warrant even where the law does not, so the ECPA’s shortcomings in the digital age (the law is more than twenty years old) are sometimes mitigated by responsible corporate policies.

But a legitimate amendment like Lofgren’s would apply Google’s common sense approach to 4th Amendment rights to all such service providers. There’s simply no excuse not to get this done.

This is an interesting move, basically setting up the lemonade stand while all you have is water: it’s on your parents to give you the rest of the ingredients if they want you to do the work.

Congress would do well to expedite the provision of sugar and lemons (read: broader authority, and some more money) to the new unit so they can start making lemonade before threats to the electrical grid start turning up the heat on the US.

Now I’m thirsty.

David Kappos thinks software patents are just fine, but I’m interested in what his as-yet unknown successor will have to say on the matter.

Twenty-plus years is a long time, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is overdue for an update. A summary of the state of things:

Unfortunately these digital documents lack long-held privacy safeguards. Email saved in web-based email systems like Yahoo for longer than six months can be accessed with an administrative subpoena, which provides less protection than a warrant. Similarly, no matter what privacy setting you use, sensitive and personal information — photos, private journals, Facebook pages, corporate data, draft reports — shared with third parties like Google and Facebook can be accessible by police without a judge’s approval. All the government has to do is swear it’s “relevant” to an investigation.

Here’s to ensuring that the Fourth Amendment isn’t rendered moot by technological advancements.

The Hill’s Erik Wasson, quoting Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots:

She described Romney as a “weak, moderate candidate hand-picked by the country club elite Republican establishment […] They didn’t see a clear distinction so they went with what they know,” she said of voters.

"Conservatives" is not an accurate descriptor of Tea Party sympathizers. "Extremists" and "fundamentalists" are better descriptors.

Actually, I think Romney’s farthest-right positions are the very ones that lost him this election. I keep hearing and reading about a growing movement among moderate Republicans (the original and, many would argue, “real” Conservatives) to take back their party.

If that narrative is accurate, and if that movement succeeds, the Republican party has a chance to put someone in the Oval Office in 2016. Those who would prefer a president with an (R) next to their name would do well to show the extremists and fundamentalists in their ranks the door.

The Digital Advertising Alliance, announcing they’ll ignore “do not track” browser headers:

A ‘default on’ do-not-track mechanism offers consumers and businesses inconsistencies and confusion instead of comfort and security.

Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas), replying to the DAA statement:

If consumers want to be tracked online, they should have to opt-in to be tracked, instead of the other way around.

Advertisers should concede the default “on” status of tracking prevention. The appearance of disrespect for consumer privacy will encourage new legislation on this front, probably from Barton and Markey. It will be an easy target for viral online support campaigns, and, eventually, advertisers may face federal regulations far harsher than defaulting to no tracking.