Why does everyone keep saying that this allows the data (which is already retained) to be accessed without a warrant? The bill doesn't address warrants at all, and the amended code requires them.
The bill addresses Subpoenas, which, in this case, refers to the legal requirement of ISPs to provide evidence for an investigation. Following the amendments back to their source is also insightful. If you read carefully you can see how they use technicalities in related legal code to get what they want. The shocking takeaway is that they do not have to notify you “the subscriber” of any kind of investigation. They write about the need to ensure consumer privacy by putting the information in a safe place under the careful watch of “a government or state organization.” So this could be interpreted as a way of taking your private data and doing whatever they want with it since it will belong to an organization not under the same rules the govt has to play.
