Texas Insider Report: WASHINGTON D.C. Lawmakers citizen activists and business groups alike are claiming the Supreme Courts twin decisions on Wednesday should motivate Congress to pass legislation that make sure the law keeps up with advances in technology. The high courts 9-0 Wednesday decision says police officers 
need a warrant before searching a suspects cellphone and gives momentum to calls for lawmakers to also require a warrant before federal state or local police can search people emails reform backers said.
In a decision hailed as a revolutionary" victory for privacy rights and a powerful check against the prying eyes of government the Supreme Courts unanimous 9-0 ruling delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts sided against the government in two cases concluding police may not search cellphones belonging to people they arrest without a courts permission.
Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple get a warrant." The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought" Roberts wrote.
Ultimately the courts ruling is sure to have implications that ripple far beyond arrest protocol according to citizen privacy and personal liberty activists who cheered the opinion in the cases known as U.S. v. Wurie and Riley v. California.
We have entered a new world but as the court today recognized our old values still apply and limit the governments ability to rummage through the intimate details of our private lives" said Steven R. Shapiro the national legal director of the ACLU who described the ruling as nothing short of revolutionary.
Todays ruling will go a long way in preventing our personal data from being unduly searched stored and abused without proper judicial oversight" said Amos Toh a fellow at New York Universitys Brennan Center for Justice noting the decision could prove to be a powerful protection against overzealous government searches in the future.
ADVERTISEMENT
The closely watched case united liberals on the left and privacy libertarians on the right in a broad-ranging fight against the governments contention that phones can provide critical evidence about crimes suspects have 
committed or about impending threats.
According to Congressman Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) the ruling makes it clear that the high court stands with reformers on digital privacy. Yoder is one of the authors of the Email Privacy Act which requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to access emails that have been stored for more than six months.
Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act stored emails can be accessed without a warrant.
Yoders bill has 220 co-sponsors in the House but has not yet received a vote.
In the Senate Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) one of the authors of the Senates version of the email privacy bill agreed. In a statement he said that the ruling should be a wake-up call that we need to update our laws to keep pace with technological advances."
Leahy and Sen. Mike Lee (top-left R-Utah) are pushing changes to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that would require police get a warrant before searching through someones old emails. Leahys bill passed out of 
his Judiciary Committee last year but has yet to come up before the full chamber.
The Supreme Court decision adds another pillar to this case were making that digital correspondence should receive the same protections as paper correspondence" he said.
If this doesnt speak directly to our issue it certainly is a guiding light for how courts would rule on this subject" added Cong. Yoder just off the House floor Wednesday.
I think its a very welcome decision because it shows the court properly understands the role of technology and our constitutional rights."
The original Electronic Communications Privacy Act dates back to 1986 and allows law enforcement agents to look at emails and other documents stored in the cloud as long as they are older than 180 days.
Bonus email privacy amendment:
The House appropriations Committee also adopted an amendment from Yoder to the appropriations bill that would prohibit agencies funding from going towards warrantless access of stored emails echoing his Email Privacy Act.
While the Department of Justice has been receptive to the warrant requirements outlined in Yoders bill some agencies especially the Securities and Exchange Commission which is funded through the appropriations bill passed on Wednesday have opposed the requirements saying they rely on subpoenas not warrants to access information needed for investigations.
Wyden wants geo-location privacy to get a nod too:
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said that his GPS Act which would require a warrant before looking for peoples location information should also be bolstered by the courts ruling. In a statement he said that the legislation he introduced along with Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is the next step" to protecting Americans Fourth Amendment rights.
Our bipartisan GPS Act provides law enforcement with a clear mandate for when to obtain a warrant for the geolocation information of an American and I aim to use this decision as a springboard to secure greater privacy rights in the days ahead" he said.
GAO finds mixed progress" at data security:
Six small federal agencies arent doing enough to manage cybersecurity risks the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in a new report. The GAO which acts as Congresss investigative arm said that the agencies are not continuously monitoring security controls are not assessing privacy impacts of their policies and dont have an effective security training program.
