>> we have got to 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 1%. >> join us live at 9:00 p.m. eastern for election results, candidate speeches, and your reaction. and, we look ahead at the fall battleground states. taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio, ?eter: what is ecpa

neema: in today's world, the american expects their e-mail to have the same constitutional protection as a love letter. that govern when police can access digital content have not been updated since 1986. there are courts that have said the police need to get warrants. what this would do is put that protection into the law. that is consistent with the policy adopted by the fbi. it is something that major providers already require. it puts that requirement into the law, eliminating any ambiguity. the legislative status of an update? neema: right now, the house has passed a bill, 419-0.

peter: what does that build do? neema: it would say that any time that police want to get your e-mails or other digital content, they have to come to providers with a warrant. it has unanimous support in the house. is hard toort that get for naming a post office, but right now that bill is sitting in the senate. to passaiting for them it and for it to become law. peter: why is it sitting in the senate? neema: it is slated to be taken up by committee next week. there have been a host of amendments proposed. many are unnecessary, many are controversial, but the hope is this bill moves cleanly given the broad base of support by the public at large. us is bryanjoining

in the a state attorney commonwealth of virginia. mr. porter, what do you think about the legislative efforts to update the ecpa? bryan: i don't think i am too far apart from the positions just dated a few minutes ago. actually, in virginia we have been very proactive with making sure that warrants are obtained when trying to get people's electronic communications. have obtainedr, i e-mails, but every single time we have used a search warrant. i think what is important from what was said is that what needs to happen is ecpa when amended give the same protection as that love letter.

additional protection. from the investigative and law enforcement field, that is our , to make sure of electronic communications are provided with the same level of protection, not an extra level protection, beyond what you would expect in your home or bank count -- account. peter: what if they were to add an extra layer? editionn the revised before the senate, does not allow for the traditional exceptions that are often used by law enforcement in a critical orsing persons case someone's personal, physical safety in danger. are limiteds, there circumstances that a police officer or federal agent might be able to access someone's written documents, access their home, car, without a search warrant in an emergency situation. our position as currently written is that those exceptions are not contemplated by the current version of ecpa.

one other area of concern is the fact that there isn't any industrywide standards. , it isrsonal experience a much different experience dealing with facebook and google in relation to the amount of information we get back, the rapidity which with it is given to us, and the obstacles we face when dealing with these different providers. one of the things we would also like to see is that the ecpa amended and enacted would give us some kind of standards for the providers to follow so we have some determination for when this information will be given to us and under what circumstances it might be given. peter: before we introduce our guest reporter, neema singh guliani, what did you get from this report? neema: it's not providing more protections for e-mails than the

love later. it is providing an equivalent protection that the constitution requires. right now, the existing standard is that if police have an emergency, they can go to a provider and tell them. providers routinely respond to those requests. many providers now have a team on call 24 hours a day, in fact, to respond to those requests. the legislation pending preserves that infrastructure. importantly, it does one of the things that we heard is important, set standards. thelarifies that a ward is right process, the right standard that must be met -- a warrant is the right process, the right standard that must be met. peter: mr. porter? bryan: i guess we have a misunderstanding or disagreement exactly what is contemplated through an amendment process,

perhaps the end result might address some of our concerns. areongform and officers, we sometimes seen as being resistant to having warrants for this type of information. i don't think that is accurate. i think i have been very forward thinking. accepting that in almost every circumstance a warrant based on probable cause that a crime has been committed and evidence will be found in electronic records is the way to go. we are asking the senate do due diligence and go through it, also the arguments of law enforcement. ofdon't use this type information at the state level to investigate petty crimes. we use the information we obtain from these types of records and combating multistate drug trafficking organizations, human trafficking organizations. just in the city of alexandria over the past couple of years, i have been on them a couple of

times. you have real serious concerns about the level of crimes and the safety of human beings at issue, you want to make sure those concerns are adequately addressed by the legislation. peter: joining our conversation is amir nasr of the morning consult. in the senate now, the judiciary committee postponed their vote last week to address many.oncerns of one senator proposed an amendment to help andterterrorism operations the other is dealing with emergency situations. i'm curious from both of you what your thoughts are on those amendments. bryan: i would have to see the final version to accurately answer your question.

all we are asking is that the amendment finally adopted encompasses the current exceptions and codify that. i am talking about true emergencies, situations in which a person may be with alzheimer's is missing and the police need to locate this person immediately because they might be in physical danger and don't have time to obtain a search warrant, and obviously we don't one anyone to be harmed because of a way to get a search warrant from a magistrate. talking about that, talking about underage people who might the needk of harm, and to find seriously dangerous felons and a short time if we have basic information about where they might be. neema: i think you raise some great points. the first question to ask is that on a bill that passed 419-0, why are we talking about

additional amendments when there is such a broad base of support? with regards to the two amendments raised, they raise privacy concerns. one of them would dramatically expand the surveillance authority of the fbi and allow a subpoena andst without a court order to get information about a person's browsing history, what sites they visit, what sites they click on, information about the to and from of e-mails they send , location information associated with someone's ip address. i think the average american would be concerned to know the fbi could get that information without going to court, particular given the history of abuse with these types of subpoenas. the inspector general has noted that these types of national security letters as they're called have been abused in the pass and used in circumstances in which they should not have been used. given the controversy and concern over this amendment, this is not the bill to put that amendment on.

that should be subject to robust debate, and i'm confident that after that debate, members of congress will say this is a problem. the second amendment put forward would have required that providers like google and microsoft respond to emergency requests even in the cases where they felt no emergency existed, even if they had evidence that a law enforcement official was trying to abuse this type of exception, and what we have seen in the past is that removing the ability of providers to resist requests that they deem as improper is a real problem. abuse ofe been these exceptions in the past. in 2010, the inspector general examine the use of emergency exceptions, and what they found was that there had been abuse, cases where requests had been put in in circumstances that weren't truly exigent. when they are removing the oftections, and then on top

it there are no protections to ensure that if there is abuse, that information is not used in a civil case or criminal case, but someone has the ability to say no emergency existed come my rights have been a violated -- have been violated. it concerning for tech and privacy advocates that she is also a cosponsor -- does that make advocates wary going fullrd when it comes to a senate vote on the underlying bill? neema: he is a cosponsor of the legislation. i am confident a path forward exist. these amendments are concerning. the senator and other members of congress have heard this concerns, and i really go back to the houseboat. for is a bill that passed 19-0. it is really a no-brainer for the senate to take up and pass.

it israel does see legislation with such a broad base of support, individuals and groups, and which industry says is desperately needed and support above. amir: the house bill underwent a few changes in committee that many privacy advocates weren't involved in, but they were ok with it moving ford if they took out a notification requirement. the subpoena powers were maintained. from a law-enforcement standpoint, how do you feel about that bill that ended up passing? think it is a very good question. again, law enforcement's perspective is that the law surrounds electronic records, and by the way, almost every major investigation can utilize electronic evidence as part of the investigation and

prosecution of a serious criminal, those types of entities, providers that maintain and collect this type of electronic evidence, they need to be subject to the same ores as the banking industry a storage facility that has physical objects of evidence. in other words, there should not be additional protections beyond what the constitution requires. that is very difficult because in most cases when you are talking about physical objects, it's just a human being or a company that possesses these objects. here we have the intervening layer of having providers involved in it. for instance, the point that was made a few minutes ago about having providers being given the opportunity to basically reject the request for records, that is difficult from a law-enforcement perspective. these providers have business concerns at their heart.

they're are not worried about whether the investigation will even if a series criminal might be prosecuted. they are worried about selling their product and making sure their client base is happy with protections. i think it is good business for them to be seen fighting the good fight, if you will. and with regards to the notification requirement, that is far below what is required of any other type of search. residen warrant for depositk fault, safety box, there's no search warrant required. beir defense attorney will provided a copy of the search warrant, but the fact that we might have to tell the child in pornographer -- those were our concerns.

right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall be issued but on probable cause, and the tickly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized should that apply uniformly to electronic communications? bryan: i agree that it should. i would like to make a couple of points. first of all, it is limited in what it actually says. a search must be reasonable, that does not mean that every search ever conducted has to be done pursuant to a warrant. it says searches must be thatnable or alternatively they are not unreasonable. in some circumstances, emergency situations we were talking about earlier with a critically missing or endangered person or perhaps a dangerous felony needs to be caught before they can do more harm, in those types of

emergency circumstances, it is reasonable to conduct a 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. obvously, that is the way it should be done, but a reasonable search and some circumstances can be done without a warrant in emergency situations. that is the law for a bank fault, safety deposit box, and we argue it should be the same standards for electronic medications. neema: let me just jump in on this question. this isn't in the bill, but the right to be notified when the government is requesting your information is a cornerstone of the fourth amendment. that means you can go to court and ask for the return of your information. you can check government surveillance that is unlawful and improper. historically, just as a practical matter, when you have etter on your desk,

you know when police came into your house. the fact that this bill does not include a notification requirement, doesn't require police to notify you immediately in cases where it might jeopardize an investigation means that as a practical matter if police get a decade's worth of your e-mail and you are charged with a crime, you may never g know you can go to court and get a redress. that is something that congress will have to deal with in the future, and that is a protection that is critical and should be included in legislation. on the note of notification, now you have microsoft suing the u.s. government for their frequent use of gag orders barring them from notifying individuals when there e-mails and messages have been seized.

they are only one of many tech companies that have gotten involved, trade groups that have said we want to change to this. how do you think that contribute to the whole discussion considering that they are the gatekeepers of the information. they are the ones who have it. bryan: it goes to my earlier point. the providers are seeing it to the person -- the prism of good business practices. encryption is part of that discussion, good security for their accounts obviously, very important to people. i don't think there is anything wrong with that. that is to be expected. it is an unusual circumstance were so much relevant information is in the hand of third parties. i think we have been more for thinking than we are given credit for in the law-enforcement field. there is an argument to be made that there is no fourth amendment protection when their information is with a third party provider. not making that argument

here, because i believe the law needs to change and alter going forward as communications and privacy concerns change. you have to start with that issue. up that when you have a love letter and the police come into your house and therefore you would know they have taken your love letter. that is not necessarily true. what if you kept your love letter and a safety deposit box and i got it when you weren't aware. there is no notification requirement. anthere charged with offense, obvious he they will get a chance to fight that in court, but if you're talking hypothetically, a child cannot child pornographer, sometimes it can take a longer time to get that through. period that is in the bill starts to tick

immediately. that is a real concern, and again, what we are asking for is the same type of protection given to people's homes, objects , to be adopted in the electronic world. neema: if i could respond to one of those points. well is this issue raises that won't interfere with the ability of law enforcement to do their job if they have an extensive investigation like mentioned. the provisions in the bill would have allowed by enforcement to go to court and say, look, notifying the individual at this point would jeopardize the investigation. we would like to provide delayed notice. would like to prevent the company from notifying the customer and delay notification on the part of the government, and those orders could be renewed so that if the investigation took a year, that notice would not be provided until the investigation was completed and it would be no concern about tampering with it are the evidence.

the existing notification provision allows the government to meet its obligation to provide notice. that obligation has been noted in court decisions. also accommodates law enforcement's legitimate needs and ensures that that type of notification does not interfere with the ability to conduct a complicated investigation. my understanding was that at some point the bill a compass the ability to delay notification, but only for six months. to bere is a conversation had about the ability to prove to a court maintaining the secrecy of an investigation can be updated on a periodic basis, that is a conversation we might be willing to have. but the point is that is not required of any other type of search warrant. if i have a search warrant for someone's home and i can execute it without it being known that we have done the search inside

the home, there is no notification requirement that makes us have any obligation to call this person that we have a search warrant and executed it. i would point out that notification provisions and also having the right to refuse process because they don't think a true emergency exists, those the type of protection that could be given an abused. we are very concerned about those. as were having this conversation, this bill is going to congress. been the revelation that the senate intelligence authorization bill has a provision buried in it that allows the fbi to read e-mails without obtaining a warrant. because theyrested are literally simultaneously going through it in the senate.

have you think this conversation advances moving forward? it shows that it is not over with this one bill. the policy conversation is clearly evolving all the time, so regardless of what happens with this bill and this whole conversation, how does it move ford? neema: i think the larger doesion of how congress update the laws to ensure people's information is protected is a beginning. example referenced for the senate intelligence authorization bill and provisions buried deep in that in a closed markup section -- session, i think that is very concerning. we haven't seen text of that legislation yet. it would allow the fbi to get very sensitive information without going to a court. the average american would be concerned that the government visited, website they

whether they get assistance for mental health disorder, google the number of a suicide hotline, sought help for medical condition, and americans increasingly find this information very sensitive and expect it will be treated with the same protections as historical information, their address. the concerns you heard expressed by members of congress who sit on the senate intelligence committee, the concerns you heard expressed from the public at large, i think they will continue and are strong indications that those are areas where we need to have more protections, not less. bryan: i think it is a very good question. i think the first thing i would tell you is i am very pleased as a law-enforcement official to see congress taking this up and debating. how do we move forward with this? the legislature, particular the congress, really needs to take hold of the situation, update

ecpa and look at it. first of all, the providers are scattered all around the country. for instance, i'm based in virginia, but on a regular basis we request records from google, facebook, twitter, and that , auires to serve a process federal process, all the way to california, so this is an area where congress has to take the lead and make sure there are standards industrywide that explain the process to get these records and requirements for responding. --thermore, i think congress the courts are not really best suited to deal with it. what i mean by that, courts are retrospect. they deal with individual cases and the backwards. by the time a court actually takes up an appeal on a complicated trial matter, it could be years up to the technology has evolved before they address that issue. circuity, the fourth

thatd an opinion countermanded a panel decision that would have required a search for historic cell phone data. i'm still contemplating whether we will be seeking search warrant for historic cell phone data. we will seek it through a search one as opposed to a for phone order. they are clearly crying out for congress to take the lead. congress needs to get involved in this because they are forward thinking and have a better ability to address this as a whole, if you will. the final point is that people like myself are talking about this. we are not enemies. as an elected prosecutor, i have a much more forward-looking view on the warrant requirement than most people would assume a law enforcement official would have.

however, i do have concerns about the investigative process, and the only way we will understand each other's position is to try to work it out to the legislative process. peter: you heard what mr. porter had to say. what is your selling point to law enforcement officials? neema: i think we are in agreement to this is an issue that congress needs to take on. we should not be operating under laws from 1986 to determine how law-enforcement gets information . i think what you are hearing is that we really are not far apart. i think the bill that came out of the house represents the considerations of privacy advocates, law enforcement officials, members of congress on both sides of the aisle. that's why you have seen the support. i think it is important to mention that you are already seeing these policies put into place at the state level. there are jurisdictions either as a metal -- matter of law or

policy, officials are already following these rules. given that, i think it is time for congress to take the lead on this issue and pass legislation that seems like a no-brainer and legislation that is needed to provide consistency among all states and all law enforcement officials. research --is your reinsurance given the concerns of civil liberty? bryan: like members of congress or state assemblies, ste prosecutors at least are electable. that means i am beholden to the people. that is true in the city of alexandria. if i'm engaged in practices that do not meet the approval of the citizenry, i have to run for reelection next year. you have that. i have found in my field that we are not anti-celebrity.

-- civil liberty. we ask for some balance of that we can put criminals away so that they can't harm society, but we are for thinking. before the gps tracking , i myselft came out was advising the police departments that i deal with and other state prosecutors at the state level that they needed to get a search warrant. same thing for increasing the standard of probable cause instead of relying on a lesser people'sfor getting historical or real-time location data. my point is that we are partners in this. we have different viewpoints and might disagree on the nuts and bolts, but we take our job seriously as well and take civil liberties into account. bryan porter put himself through law school by working as a policeman in alexandria, virginia. he is now the elected commonwealth attorney in that

city. neema singh guliani is a legislative council at a graduate of harvard law school. is the technology reporter for morning consult. this is the "the communicators" >> three-time boxing champion mohammed ali has died. he had battled parkinson's for decades. the metal is for people who have made contributions to society, peace, or culture. theiry a few athletes and sport our notice the greatest of all time. but when you say, the greatest of all-time is in th