Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House

Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by rayiner on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @11:49PM (#11586464)

You don't ignore section headings when reading laws. Besides that, nothing in that section discusses granting authority to collect "covered communication." The section is discussing the retention policies of communications collected by some authorized manner.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by woodman on Thursday April 28, 2016 @12:34AM (#11586570)

> You don't ignore section headings when reading laws.

You do when you are interpreting the laws. They're labels that carry as much weight as subsection markers. To say otherwise would imply that the "Patriot Act" by another name would be interpreted differently, or that bullet point "1" is more important that "2".

> nothing in that section discusses granting authority

Correct, it is a direction to those that already have such authority. While I enjoy the legal equivalent to the underhanded C contest as much as the next guy, the events that spawned this legislation make debating the finer points of section headings seem pretty silly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by gknoy on Thursday April 28, 2016 @12:23AM (#11586544)

You might recall that the NSA has a curious definition of "collect". They use "collect" where most of us would use "search the existing massive database that we already collected".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by themartorana on Thursday April 28, 2016 @10:00AM (#11588886)

But collection is sweeping and worldwide (including domestic). We know that already.

[ Parent | on HN ]