communications privacy act? guest: ecpa is, quite simply, in today s world the average american expects that the e-mail they send to their loved one is going to have the same constitutional protections as the love letter they may have put in their desk. but unfortunately, our laws that govern when police can access digital content haven t been updated since 1986. in the interim, there have been courts that have said police have to get a warrant before they get things like e-mails or private facebook messages. what this would do is, essentially, put that protection into the law. that s consistent with the policy adopted by the fbi. it s similar to what google, microsoft and other major providers already require. but what it does is put that requirement into the law, eliminating any ambiguity about the protections that should apply to people s private, sensitive digital information. host: now, what s the legislative discuss of an update to ecpa right now? guest: you know,
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
thank you very much for that kind introduction. thank you for that. not just for me, but for all of us. welcome here i would like to welcome all of you. we love having you here on the most beautiful campus in america. i have been asked to speak about the origins in the early history of the vice presidency up to the 12 amendments. the 12th amendment. you will understand why i end at the 12th amendment by the time i have done, i hope. and that way i hope to answer , some of the wonderful questions that were raised. as a historian, to me that s a sign that i tell a story. so let me begin. in its 1789 origins, the creation of an office of vice president was an afterthought at the constitutional convention and reflected spectacularly little forethought. some delegates dismissed it as a useless appendage, while others thought it was a constitutional mistake. even his proponents at the convention did not claim that the office served a significant government purpose, but was ra
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
shoot out right in the middle of the street? that s absolutely right. just up the hill in a neighborhood surrounding officers from prince george s county and forest heights engaged in a shoot out exchanging gunfire with a suspect, striking him and fatally wounding him. a gunman assaulting a driver and taking off in his vehicle through prince george s county. police pursuant sued that suspect back and forth into the district of columbia winding their way through the streets. police aren t saying who started the shooting but we know who ended it. he was taken to a hospital where we now know he has passed away. no officers were injured. npd says their officers weren t involved in the chase but because this ended in dc they are taking point on the investigation. reporting live in southeast dc. garrett, thank you, we will of course update the situation as we get new details. you can get the latest any time by downloading our app. you can get important updates 24/7. before