I think you need to understand that a) your version of reality is not how public policy is made; b) those of use in Washington have got this under control. If we need you, we’ll call you. c) No one is requiring that you use free services whose terms you disagree with. If you don’t like the business model of a company,…

Yeah, but that was considered and dealt with in the House bill that passed today in that was decided not to concede to their desires. In fact, the House preserved their own ability to gain access to communications with a subpoena and chose to not address administrative agencies.

But your fervor against corporations in favor of the government has no bearing on the words on paper proposed by Burr & Feinstein. Even the most conservative attorney at the Justice Department would not agree with their approach as it is entirely outlandish and impractical.

Originally, computer storage was limited on PCs, so you stored data remotely. Today, that storage has been remarketed to be called “cloud storage” and you all bought into it as a novel idea. That’s the simple version, but there are nuances due to Internet applications, usage, etc, but mostly remote storage is now…

You’re cute. You also have no idea what you’re talking about. You should read the childish bill you’re defending - it’s junk. Phoned in. It’s a placeholder. I wouldn’t waste my breath defending Senators Burr or Feinstein. Ever.

So the current 180 day rule has nothing to do with delayed notice. Moreover, most companies and the Justice Department have quietly agreed to nationalize a court decision requiring warrant for content, for many years now, and I wouldn’t necessarily say that the 180-day rule “flew in the face of the 4th Amendment”…

There is significant opposition in the Senate, you are wrong on that point. Particularly with the Chair of the Judiciary Committee who has no intention of bringing it forward. While it may pass the House tomorrow, that is where it will die.