Email privacy has suddenly become the topic du jour in Washington, thanks largely to the still-unfolding scandal involving former CIA Director David Petraeus. Privacy advocates have pounced, using the events to push for new privacy laws that protect emails and other data from warrantless searches by law enforcement officials. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., plans to mark up such a bill in his committee during the lame-duck session, but he must overcome opposition from top panel Republican Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who has concerns about impeding criminal investigations. Leahy and other advocates claim that the bill would merely extend protections online that already apply to data stored physically. Regardless, the recent turmoil has brought renewed attention to the issue and may build momentum for some limits on how much of a private citizen's data the government can access without a warrant. Such restrictions looked like a long shot previously.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are once again showing an interest in the Obama administration's email use. Specifically, six members of the House Science Committee wrote to the heads of the EPA, Commerce and Energy Departments on Thursday asking whether they conduct official business using private email accounts. The letter comes soon after a new book by conservative author Christopher Horner, who said sources told him EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and her Clinton-era predecessor Carol Browner both use alias email accounts. Federal agencies are required by law to preserve all records and avoid using private email for official business unless those emails are tracked and stored. The House Oversight Committee previously targeted the White House's use of private email accounts in violation of the Presidential Records Act, but Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has said he doesn't plan to press further on that issue. Democrats in Congress were frequently critical of the Bush administration for similar use of undocumented private email accounts. On the Move: The U.S. Council for International Business has hired Barbara Wanner to represent the communications and technology sectors as vice president. In her new role, Wanner represented U.S. companies at the U.N. Internet Governance Forum in Azerbaijan earlier this month and is preparing for the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai next month, where countries will negotiate an Internet governance treaty. U.S. businesses and lawmakers are worried that developing nations may push for greater oversight of the Internet by the U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union. American lawmakers have said such a change would lead to censorship and government repression of the Web and have vowed to oppose any shift away from the current multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Verizon Cites Free Speech in Net Neutrality Opposition: Reps. Henry A. Waxman, Anna G. Eshoo, both D-Calif., and Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., sent a letter (PDF) to their colleagues on Friday highlighting what they termed a "troubling constitutional argument" filed by Verizon as part of the company's lawsuit to overturn the FCC's net neutrality rules. Verizon essentially claims that because it owns some of the physical infrastructure of its network, the speech that passes over that network is constitutionally protected. As such, Verizon argues that network operators enjoy the First Amendment right to decide what should be communicated over their network, without any interference from the government. The argument appears to fall in line with Verizon's contention that the FCC overstepped its authority in passing the rules, but, if accepted, it would also greatly expand which industries are protected by the First Amendment. A federal court is expected to hear the net neutrality challenge sometime early next year; the same court threw out the FCC's previous attempt to regulate net neutrality. ICYMI: Federal Judge Approves FTC's $22.5 Million Fine of Google: A federal judge approved the FTC's $22.5 million fine against Google late Friday, rejecting calls for stiffer penalties from frequent Google critic Consumer Watchdog. Google allegedly bypassed the privacy setting for millions of users of the Web browser Safari, who were unaware that they could be tracked. The fine is the largest penalty seen recently against a Web company bound by the terms of a settlement agreement with the FTC, as Google was after the Buzz privacy debacle two years ago. The agreement authorizes the FTC to fine Google for every violation of its own privacy statements.