meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Tech Policy Podcast

#94: Email Privacy in an Emergency

Tech Policy Podcast

TechFreedom

Technology

4.845 Ratings

🗓️ 9 June 2016

⏱️ 20 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Email privacy reform passed unanimously in the House, but the Email Privacy Act has hit a snag in the Senate. Though the bill’s core mission — requiring warrants before law enforcement can access Americans’ online communications — is largely uncontroversial, some Senators are pushing an exception that would allow law enforcement to bypass warrant requirements in an emergency. Evan is joined by Jim Trainum, former police officer and co-chair of the Constitution Project’s Policing Reform Committee, who argued in a recent op-ed in The Hill that the emergency exception is both harmful and unnecessary. Is email privacy at an impasse? Can a compromise be reached?

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

Welcome to the Tech Policy Podcast. I'm Evan Schwarger. On today's show, email privacy, the Email Privacy Act, which basically requires that law enforcement get a warrant before accessing Americans' online communications,

0:21.9

relatively uncontroversial. It passed the House of Representatives unanimously, 419 to zero, which is kind of

0:28.2

crazy in an era when Congress can't seem to agree that the sky is blue. But the bill has hit a snag

0:34.0

in the Senate, and one of the real dividing lines is what happens when law enforcement

0:39.4

needs access to information in an emergency. Should there be an exception or should they still have

0:45.1

to get a warrant? Joining me to discuss this is Jim Trinom, a former police officer and co-chair of the

0:51.2

Constitution Project's policing reform committee. He argued in a recent op-ed in the

0:55.8

Hill that the title of the op-ed is Congress shouldn't tamper with law enforcement's emergency

1:00.4

exception rule. Jim, thank you for joining me. You're quite welcome. Thank you for having me.

1:04.4

So just walk us through what exactly this amendment would do. The core of the bill closes some

1:10.4

loopholes, basically requires law enforcement

1:12.5

to get a warrant, basic Fourth Amendment protections for digital communications. What is this amendment

1:17.3

that is causing such a uproar among privacy advocates? It basically allows me as a law enforcement

1:23.4

officer to circumvent the entire system of warrants and court orders and whatnot just by saying

1:30.9

that I have an emergency and you have to get this to me right now. And is there a definition of what an

1:37.4

emergency entails or is it entirely up to a police officer to decide what the emergency is?

1:42.2

It's pretty much up to the police officer. Now, what they're

1:45.0

supposed to do is after they declare that this is an emergency, they're supposed to get a certification

1:51.7

justifying why it is an emergency, but that's only after the fact. There, and there's really no

1:58.6

system that I've seen in place for monitoring or reviewing those certifications.

2:04.2

So basically, as an officer, I can just call up a service provider, provide them with no justification whatsoever.

2:12.2

Just tell them that this is an emergency and give it to me right now.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from TechFreedom, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of TechFreedom and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.