proceedings in their own homes. >> in effect the senate floor has been a kind of a stage. the senators have been acting on that stage. the audience is in the galleries. and by our action today we haven't really fundamentally altered that situation. we simply enlarged the galleries and pushed out the walls to include all of the american people who wish to watch. >> commemorating 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. >> this week on "the communicators" a discussion about the electronic communications cyber, ghoul yani is with the american civil liberties union. miss ghoul yani, what is the electronic communications privacy act. >> guest: it's about brunging fourth amendment protections. quite simply no today's world the average american expected

that e-mail they send their loved one has the same constitutional protection as the love letters in the past but unfortunately the laws that govern when police have access to con dent have not been updated since 1986. in the interim there have been courts said police have to get a warrant before they can get e-mails and facebook messages. this puts that protection into the law. consistent with the policy adopted by fbi. it's what google and other major providers already require but this putses that requirement into the law, eliminating any ambiguity about the protections that apply to people's private, sensitive digital information. >> host: what is the legislative status of an update? right now the house has passed 419-0 so supported by republican. >> what does that bill do? >> that bill would put in place

the warrant requirement, and basically say that anytime that police want to get your e-mails, other type's digital content they have to come to providers with a warrant, and it passed with unanimous support in the house, and back bid right-wing groups and left-wing groups and the bill is in the senate, and we're waiting for it to move on its path and become law. >> why is it sitting in the senate? >> it's slated to be taken up next week there have been a host of amendments proposed. many amends are unnecessary, many are controversial, but the hope is that this bill moves cleanly, given the broad base of support not non the house but the public at large who want to feel their rights are protected in the digital age. >> also joining us is brian porter, commonwealth attorney or state attorney in the

commonwealth of virginia. mr. porter, what do you think about the legislative efforts to update the electronic communications privacy act. >> well, interestingly enough i don't really think i'm far apart on miss julian any she just stated -- ghoul yani's position. we have been pro-active making sure warrants are obtained and trying to get people's communications, particularly e-mails. over the course of my 15 years as a prosecutor on a number of occasion us if i have obtained e-mails and every single time we used a search warrant in an effort to obtain that. what is important and what was said by miss -- -- the love letter written electronic, had additional protections and the investigative law enforcement field that's what our main concern is, make sure that the

electronic communications are provided with the same level of protection, not an extra level of protection, beyond what you expect your home. >> what is the legislative effort to add an extra layer? >> well, one of the thing that concern us as it's currently written in the revised before the senate is it goes not allow the exceptions to he search warrant requirement used by law enforcement, in a critical missing persons case 0 sun's personal safety might be in danger. there are very limited circumstances that a police officer or federal agent might be able to access somebody's written document, axis their home and car without a search warrant in emergent situations and in -- one of our main areas of concern. one other area of concern for news the investigative field in

the law enforcement arena is the fact that really isn't any industry-wide standards for providers. in other words i can tell you from personal experience it's a different experience dealing with facebook, for example, than google in real estate to the amount of information we get back, the rapidity in which it's given to us and the obstacles with dealing with the providers. we would like to see the -- when it is amended and enacted, would give us some kind of standards so we have some determination when information will be given to us and under what circumstances. >> before we introduce or guest reporter whacker -- reporter, what did you hear. >> the issues that bryan raised are dressed in the legislation. it's not providing more protections more than a love letter. it's providing equivalent protection of the constitution in response to the concerns

about emergencies, right now, the existing standard is that if police have an emergency they dock to a provider and say i've got an information. i need information, and providers routinely respond to those questions. many providers now have a team on call 24 hours a day, in fact to respond to those requests. the legislation pending to preserve that existing infrastructure, and importantly it does one of the things that we heard that is important, which is setting standards for providers to follow and qualifies a warrantes if the right process and the right standard. so it's a step forward into creating clear standards that companies can fall -- can follow. >> in parter. >> i guess we have some misunderstand organize disagreement exactly what is contemplated. going through the amendment process perhaps the end result might address our concerns.

these are areas as law enforcement we're seep as being resistant to the idea of having warns for this information. that's at not accurate from any standpoint. i think have been forward thinking at the national attorney association has been forward thinking in accepting that in almost every circumstance a warrant based on probable cause that evidence could be found in electronic records is a way to go, but this is a huge change. a very complicated bill and we are asking that the senate give due diligence and understand the arguments of law enforcement. we don't use this type of information, at least at the state level to investigate petty crimes. we use the information that we obtain from these i'ms of recordness combating drug trafficking organizations, human trafficking organizations. i've -- and in homicide as well. so you have real serious concerns here about both the

level of crime and the safety of human beings issue and want to make sure those issues adequately dressed. >> joining our conversation is amir nassar of the morning council and he covers technology. question that -- >> in the senate now, the judiciary committee postponed the vote because of concerns of many. senator john cornyn had a couple of amendments. one of them was to help counterterrorism operations and the other is actually -- i guess talking about dealing with emergency situations. i'm curious from both of you what your thoughts are on those amendments, whether they fix legislation, whether they undermine it. >> i have to see the final version in order to be able to accurately answer your question. all we're asking is that the amendment that is finally passed, if there is one adopted,

that basically encomp pauses the current exigent circumstances and codifies that. so i'm talking about true emergencies. situations in which a person may be with alzheimer's, missing and the police need to locate this person immediately because they might be in physical danger, don't have time to obtain a search warrant, and we don't want anyone to be harmed with an hour's long wait in order to get a search warrant from a magistrate. so talking about that. talking about underwaged people who might be in harm or at risk of harm, and talking about the seriously dangerous felons in a short period of time if we have basic information about where they might be. >> i think you're right. the first question to ask is on a bill that passed 419 to 0 why we are talking about additional amendments when there's such a broad base of support. with regards to the two amendment that senator cornyn

raised they have a host of privacy concerns. some of them dramatically expand the surveillance authority of the fbi and allow them to without court order get information about individual's browsing history, what web sites they visit, what the might click on, information about the to and from of e-mails they may send, location information that might be associated with someone's ip address. i think the average american would be very concerned to know that the fbi could get that information without going to court, particularly given the history of the abuse we have seen with these programs. for example, you have the inspector general noted that these type-of-national security -- types of national security letters have been abused in the past and have one used in situations they shouldn't have been used. goodnight the controversy and the concerns with this amendment this is just not the bill to put that amendment on and it's something that should be subject to robust debate, and i am confident that after that debate, members of congress will

say, well, it's the -- a problem. the second amendment that senator cornyn puts forth would require that providers, companies like google and microsoft, respond to emergency requests even in cases where they felt that no emergency existed, even if they had evidence that a law enforcement official was trying to abuse the type of exception, and what we see in the past is removing the ability of providers to resist requests as improper is a real problem because there has been abuse of these exceptions in the past. so, for example in 2010 the department of justice inspector general examined use of the so-called emergency exceptionses of imagine security context. and what they found was there had been abuses. cases where requests were put in, circumstances that weren't truly exigent, and it's a problem when you're removing the protections against to the types of abusive requests and then there are no protections to ensure if there is abuse, that information isn't used in a

civil case, isn't used in a criminal case, but someone has the ability to say, no emergency existed. my rights have been violated and here's the redress i would like. >> barring the civil liberties concerns, is it concerning for the privacy advocates that senator cornyn is obviously very powerful in the senate but also a cosponsor. does that make civil liberties advocates wary going forward to a potential committee or full senate vote on the underlying bill? >> senator cornyn is a cosponsor of the legislation. i think that these particular amendments are concerning. i think that the senator and other members of congress have heard those concerns, and really i go back to the house vote. this is a bill that pasted 419 to 0. it's no-brain for the senate tike it up and pass. it's rare you see a piece of legislation withsuch a broad base of support, individuals and

groups across the political spectrum, and for which history also says is tells president lie needed and supportive of. >> mr. porter, to the house bill underline a few changes in committee that many privacy activists werin' not enenthralled about. the communication requirement, come powers are main it. i'm courteous from a law enforcement standpoint how do you feel about that bill? was that still insufficient? >> i think it's a very good question. i think again, law enforcement -- the law that is allowed any electronic records -- by the way almost every major investigation today, electronic evidence is part of the evidence. those types of -- providers that

maintain and collect evidence, they need to be subject to same rules as the banking industry or a storage facility that has physical objects as evidence. the shouldn't be additional protection beyond what the constitution requires. this particular class of evidence. that's very difficult because in most cases, when you're talking about physical objects that a human being or perhaps a company, we have the intervening layer of having providers involved, and for instance, the point that made a few minutes ago about having providers giving the opportunity to basically reject requests for records. these providers have business concerns, at their heart. they're not worried about whether or not the investigation is going to go well or whether it's not actually a serious

criminal smooth be prosecuted with theft. they're worry bet sell thing suspect making sure that the client base is happy with the protections and it's good business for them to be seen fighting the good fight. it's till a problem for us. with regard notification requirement, that's far beyond' what is required for any other search warrant. a search warrant for somebody's residence, a bank vault, safety deposit box. notification requirement. obviously in most cases a search warrant for records and that might very well get ahold of that if the prosecutor -- is going to be provided a copy of the search warrant but the idea we might have to tell a porn nothinggrapher or human trafficker or a criminal street gang they're being vested before we're actually read you to bring charges has a chilling effect on all of law enforcement. that's where our concerns are in the bill. i'm glad they were dressed. >> the fourth amendment rides to

right of the people secure in the person, housessers papers and effect, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, and particularly deciding the place to be -- describing the place to be searched or the person organize things to be seize should that apply uniformly to electronic communications? >> i absolutely agree it should. i would make a couple of points about the fourth amendment. it's very limited in what is it actually says, search must be reasonable. that doesn't mean that every search if conduct hayes to be done pursuant to the warrant. the -- so in some circumstances, emergency situations that we were talking earlier with a critically missing injured person or a dangerous felon needs to be caught before they can do more harm, those type of emergency circumstances is actually reasonable to conduct the search without a warrant.

so i agree with my counterpart here, in almost all circumstances, in the vast majority of circumstances, when we have the ability to resort to legal process, obviously that's the way it should be done but a reasonable search, some sort of warrantlessly and emergency situations. that's the law for a bank vault, safety deposit box, somebody's home should be the same for -- >> this question on notice. this isn't in the bill but the right to be notified when the government is requesting your information is a requirement of the fourth amendment. you can go to court and say i'd like return of my information. you can -- government surveillance and sources that are unlawful and improper and this a practical matter. when you have a love letter spored in your disk you knew the police went to get the bert a

because lad had to ask permission to enter your house. the fact that this bill doesn't include a notification requirement, does not require police to notify you either immediately or in cases where it might jeopardize an investigation, means that as practical matter if a police have a decade of your e-mails and you're not charged with a crime you anyway never know so you can go to court and get redress. that's something that congress will have to deal with in the future and that is a protection that is critical and should be included. >> i think it's interesting because now you have microsoft doing the less government for their frequent use of gag orders, barring us from notifying individuals when they're e-mails, messages, had been seized. there are only one of many tech companies thea that have gotten involved or trade groups said we want to change this.

how do you think that contributes to the whole discussion considering that -- like i said earlier they the gate keeners of the. >> goes back to the earlier point if the providers are seeing out there the prism of good business, wanting to make they're customers happy. inscription is part of that. good security for their accounts, obviously, very important to people. and i don't think there's anything wrong with that. income that's to be expected. it's an unusual circumstance where so mach really relevant information is in the hander of third parties. think we have been more forward-thinking than we're sometimes given credit for in the law enforcement field. there's clear argue toll be made there's no fourth amendment protection when people give their information to third party providers like an e-mail provider or a cell phone provider. i'm not making that agentment here because i agree the law needs to change going forward as communications and privacy concerns change over the years

but you have to start with that issue. now, it was brought up when you had a love letter, the police would come into your house and you would know they have taken your love letter. that's not necessarily true. what if you kept your fleeter safety deposit pockets and employs got it when you weren't looking there is no notification requirement. the person is ultimately charged with an offense, they wish to use the evidence, they'll gate copy of the search warrant and have an able to fight that in court but if you're talking about hypothetically, a child pornographyer sometimes it can take 18 months to get the investigation through. if the provisions for notification had gone through as they were written in the original bill, as soon as search warrants obtained, that six months or whatever time period in the bill starts to tick immediately and at the end of six months if we're not ready to charge we have to notify the person elm obvious import is the evidence will be destroyed.

so that's a real concern and, again, what we're asking for is the same type of protections given to people's homes other, objects and effects in the electronic world. >> if could just respond to one of those on its. there's an issue raised as well, no notice, no fear, with the ability of law enforcement to do their job, let's say they have an extensive investigation. the provisions in the bill would have allowed law enforcement to go to court and say, look, notifying individual at this point would jeopardize the investigation. we would like to provide delayed notice. but companies -- delay mission by the companies and on the part of the government and the orders be reviewed. so if the investigation took a year that mission wouldn't be provided until the investigation was completed and there was no concern before tamper with evidence. this nation requirement -- an

obligation has been acknowledged in court decisions and has historically been something that law enforcement could not evade duty. also accommodates law enforcement for legitimate needs and ensures that notification doesn't interfere with the ability to conduct an investigation. >> any understanding what as some point the bill income passed the ability to delay notification but only for a total of six months. if there's a conversation you had about the ability to prove to the court, maintaining the secrecy of the investigation ongoing and that can be updated on a periodic base, a conversation we might be willing to have. the point opinion is that is not required of anyway search warrants. have a search warrant for somebody's home. if i can execute the search pointer, and get in and get out without them knowing we have invaded their home and dug the search inside of the home, there's no notification

requirement that makes us have any obligation to call this person and tell them we had a search warrant that we excused at their residence. notification provision and also -- having the treating refuse process because they don't the think true emergency exists, those types of protections could be given and abused by the providers. we're very concerned. >> as we're having this conversation this bill is going through congress, there's also been a relation of the senate intelligence authority bill as a provision where it allows the fbi to read e-mails through -- without necessarily obtaining a warrant. i'm just interested because they're lilt rattily simultaneously going through their -- in the senate. how do you think this conversation advances moving forward? it shows that it's not over just

this one bill. policy conversations clearly evolving all the time. so, how do you think regardless of what happens with this bill, this whole conversation, how does it move understand. >> i think that the larger question how does come congressup date the threw make sure people's information is protected now that we have all these methods of communication is very much at the beginning. think what we saw, for example, the senate intel authorization bill and provisions very deep in that in a closed majorup service where the public didn't have access, that very concerning. what we saw and heard -- we haven't seen text of that legislation yet -- that it would allow thefish to get very, very sensitive information without going to a court. the average american would be concerned if the government knew what websites they visit, whether they went to web sites to get assistance to them on a health disorder, whether they

googled the number of a suicide hotline or sought help for domestic violence or a health condition, and americans find this information very extensive and expect it to be treated with the same -- or -- and the concerns you heard expressed by members of congress, who sit on the intelligence committee, the concerns you heard from the public at large, i think will continue and are strong indication that those are areas where we need to have more protection, not less. >> i think it's a very good question, and i think the first thing i would tell you is i'm very pleased as a law enforcement officer to see congress debating this. how does it go forward? how do we move forward? i think the legislature, particularly congress -- not the states -- really need to take ahold of this situation, update -- and continue with over the years look at it. a couple of reasons for that.

the providers are scattered all all around the country. for instance, i'm bailed in virginia but on a regular basis we request records from google, facebook, twitter. that requires us to serve process throughout the entire country. this is an area where congress has to take the lead and pre-empt and make sure there are standards industry-wide that explain the process to get the records and the requirements for responding to them. furthermore i think congress has really the moving force because the courts are not best suited to deal with it. courts are retrospective and deal with individual cases cased look backwards. by a time a cower takes up on appeal a very complicated trial matter it could be years after the technology has evolved where they get to address that issue. yesterday, the fourth circuit, issued an point in which they --

the -- a panel decision that would have required a search warrant. i'm contemplating whether or not we will be seeking search warrants for historic data. i think we'll seek it through a search warrant as opposed to a phone order. the point i'm trying mike if you read the fourth circuit's decision they're crying out for congress to take the lead, given the majority opinion that says we're not well-suited for this. congress needs to get involved in this because they're forward thinking and have a better an to address that's as holistic view. the final part of that, myself, people like miss giuliani talking about this. we're not enemies. i have a much more, i think, forward-looking view on the warrant requirement than people assume a law enforcement official would have. however die have concerned about the investigative process and the only way i can understand her position and she can

understand me is for us to try to work it out through the legislative process. >> what is your selling point to law enforcement officials? >> i think that we're in agreement. this is an issue that congress needs to take on. we should not be operating under laws from 1986 to determine how -- whether it's vocation information or -- and what you're having is that we're really not far apart, and i think the bill that came out of the house has considerations of privacy, law enforcement officials, members of congress on both sides of the eaisle and that's why you see unanimous support, and at a state level your already seeing the policies put in application. many jurisdictions where as a matter of law or a matter of policy, state prosecutors and state law enforcement officials are already following these rules. and given that, i think it's

time for congress to take a lead on is in issue, pass legislation that has seemed for all intents and purposes like a no-brainer and legislation that is needed to provide consistency among states and law enforcement officials and companies. >> bryan porter, what its your reassurance that those conditioned with civil liberties? >> i think that one over the things i would say with regards to that is, like members of congress or state assemblies, state delegates, state prosecutors are elected and that means i applebee -- i am beholding to the people. if i engage in practices not approvedly the citizenry, i have to run for re-election next year. also got the fact that i have found in my field we are not anti-civil liberty. we ask for balance and the investigative tools necessary to put murders and drug traffics and child upon nothinggraphers

away so they can't harm society it years before the gps tracking requirement came out, search warrant for putting a tracker on a vehicle, i myself was advising the police department is deal with and other state prosecutors at the state level, that they needed to get a search warrant before the jones case came out. same thing for increasing the standard of probable cotts instead of relying on a lesser standard with regard to getting people's location data. my point is we are partners in this. we'll have different viewpoints and midnight disagree on the nutteds and bolts of the bill but be take our jobs seriously as well and take civil liberties into account. >> bryan porter put himself through law school working working as a policeman and now the elected commonwealth attorney in the city. neena giuliani a lottive counsel

at the alcs and a graduate of harvard law school, and we have the technology counsel for consult. this is the communicators on chance. >> india's prime minister arrived in u.s. today. he'll meet with president obama tomorrow, and address a joint meeting of congress wednesday. we'll look at usneae relations next here on c-span2. then a discussion on academy freedom on university campuses. that's from emory university law school. later a conversation on automatic voter registration being considered by 28 states this year. >> tuesday morning, hispanic research director will join us to discuss the role of the latino vote has played so far in

the presidential primaries and the voting power the group has in the fall electioned. then we look at the roll of the benefit guarantee corporation, the financial stress it's facing and broader retirement security issues for american. our guest is a guest scholar at the brookings institution. be sure to watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. >> our live coverage of the presidential race continues tuesday night with primaries in six states: california, montana, new jersey, new mexico, and north and south dakota. >> a more different position or four country than the one between our side of democrats for progress, for prosperity, for fairness and opportunity, than the presumptive nominee on the republican side.

>> we're going to win all of them. we're going to win on education no more common core, bring it down, bring it down. we want it local. we're going to win with healthcare. we're going to win at the border. >> we have got redefine what politics means in america. we need people from coast to coast, standing up, fighting back, and demanding a government that represents all of us, not just the one percent. >> join us live at 9:00 p.m. eastern for election results, candidate speeches and your reaction, and we'll look ahead at the fall battleground states, taking you on the road to the white house on c-span. c-span radio, and c-span.org. tsunami. of. india's prime minister will address a joint meet offering congress on win, part of a

three-day visit to the u.s. for prime prime minister narendra modi. this an hour and 25 minutes. >> there we go. well, we're joking that this must be a gallagher conference because everybody stayed out of the first two rows. there will be no watermelon smashed. so feel free to sit in the front.