Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 183 posts

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#101

Post by cmiles74 »

iaw wrote: post #99
JohnStudio wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the post-Obama efforts to dismantle the wire tapping program that Bush had put in place w/ the perceived powers of the executive? That's a serious question, since I don't really know history behind it.

There was no effort to dismantle the wiretapping... * Bush implemented surveillance of citizens in response to 9/11 * Obama continued to support this program after it was revealed by Edward Snowden * Now there's Trump

Personally, this was one of my biggest disappointments from the Obama administration. Before he became president, he was critical of the Patriot Act and seemed legitimately concerned[0]. After election he signed a four year renewal[1].

[0]: http://obamaspeeches.com/041-The-PATRIOT-Act-Obama-Speech.ht...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveilla...

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#102

Post by hrasyid »

bgentry wrote: post #41

55 House Democrats, including Pelosi, voted against the USA Rights Act amendment that would have substantially limited the surveillance against US citizens. 65 House Democrats ultimately voted in favor of this bill and giving the Trump admin more unchecked surveillance powers. https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml

Is the clerk.house.gov link the right one? It has "BILL TITLE: Rapid DNA Act of 2017" on its header, doesn't sound like a surveillance law

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

hrasyid wrote: post #102
bgentry wrote: post #41

55 House Democrats, including Pelosi, voted against the USA Rights Act amendment that would have substantially limited the surveillance against US citizens. 65 House Democrats ultimately voted in favor of this bill and giving the Trump admin more unchecked surveillance powers. https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml

Is the clerk.house.gov link the right one? It has "BILL TITLE: Rapid DNA Act of 2017" on its header, doesn't sound like a surveillance law

> Is the clerk.house.gov link the right one? It has "BILL TITLE: Rapid DNA Act of 2017" on its header, doesn't sound like a surveillance law?

First, it sounds like a genetic information surveillance law to me, but lots of laws have things other than their main focus (including reauths of other laws) tucked in.

Second, lots of laws have misleading titles; do “USA PATRIOT Act” and “USA FREEDOM Act” sound (other than knowing the actual content put under those titles included) like surveillance laws?

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#104

Post by bogomipz »

asimpletune wrote: post #98
bzbarsky wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen, Pelosi pretty consistently votes for expansion of state surveillance and other aspects of the security apparatus. So this vote is entirely in line with her general voting record...

Pelosi and Feinstein are the worst when it comes to privacy law.

Which is something I find interesting since they are both Democrats from San Francisco - Pelosi(represents S.F, the 12th district) and Feinstein represents California but is born and bread S.F. and served as its' Mayor for a bit.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#105

Post by hrasyid »

dragonwriter wrote: post #103
hrasyid wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the clerk.house.gov link the right one? It has "BILL TITLE: Rapid DNA Act of 2017" on its header, doesn't sound like a surveillance law

> Is the clerk.house.gov link the right one? It has "BILL TITLE: Rapid DNA Act of 2017" on its header, doesn't sound like a surveillance law? First, it sounds like a genetic information surveillance law to me, but lots of laws have things other than their main focus (including reauths of other laws) tucked in. Second, lots of laws have misleading titles; do “USA PATRIOT Act” and “USA FREEDOM Act” sound (other than kn…

So, how do we know that it's the right one?

Also, it's quite conceivable that a government considers surveilance "patriotic" or necessary to defend "freedom", but I don't feel the same about "Rapid DNA".

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#106

Post by throwwwwaway9 »

rektide wrote: post #54

As Wyden[1] points out, Congress has nearly no information on what impact the FISA program has. How many Americans are targeted already? The military refuses to answer Congress. How many emails & other collections are swept up? The military refuses to answer to Congress. This bill explicitly allows it's use directly against Americans and declares which circumstances the FBI & other agencies need to use warrants and w…

As if that matters...time for a new "law", big brother is inevitable, just a matter of time and a matter of justification

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#107

Post by Animats »

PopsiclePete wrote: post #13
epmaybe wrote: post #8

I had a discussion with my mother regarding surveillance and privacy and how they relate to safety. I feel like she understands that surveillance when used in a nefarious manner can be detrimental to individual freedoms, but is pro surveillance regardless. This is because she believes that the benefits of keeping others safe outweighs the potential for misuse. How can I help her understand why people fight for privac…

You can't. Most people will choose safety over freedom every single time.

The ads for China's "big brother" systems, some of which are corporate/government partnerships, are way ahead of the US.[1] These are from QQ.

In one public demo, jaywalkers in a city intersection had their personal details appear on a giant screen.[2]

[1] https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/947649480123285505 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXKvo6xl6U

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#108

Post by bgentry »

hrasyid wrote: post #102
bgentry wrote: post #41

55 House Democrats, including Pelosi, voted against the USA Rights Act amendment that would have substantially limited the surveillance against US citizens. 65 House Democrats ultimately voted in favor of this bill and giving the Trump admin more unchecked surveillance powers. https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml

Is the clerk.house.gov link the right one? It has "BILL TITLE: Rapid DNA Act of 2017" on its header, doesn't sound like a surveillance law

I think so, it appears to be the primary bill that was discussed this morning: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20180111&...

The Amash amendment was also to this bill.

Here is a pamphlet comparing S. 139 with the Amash/USA Rights Act Amendment: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/ChartCompa...

That same document refers to S. 139 as the FISA Reauthorization Amendments Act.

More clarification from journalists who closely follow this topic: https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/951541344274649089

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#109

Post by vuln »

cmiles74 wrote: post #101
iaw wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no effort to dismantle the wiretapping... * Bush implemented surveillance of citizens in response to 9/11 * Obama continued to support this program after it was revealed by Edward Snowden * Now there's Trump

Personally, this was one of my biggest disappointments from the Obama administration. Before he became president, he was critical of the Patriot Act and seemed legitimately concerned[0]. After election he signed a four year renewal[1]. [0]: http://obamaspeeches.com/041-The-PATRIOT-Act-Obama-Speech.ht... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveilla...

This has to be my number one gripe with Obama. I was so for him repealing the Bush Era Surveillance. I wanted more checks and balances. I wanted the secret courts to be dismantled.

Unfortunately Obama almost quadrupled funding to these agencies[1]. Throughout his administration he allowed the Alphabet boys to try and steal more american's data without warrants (See FBI v Apple and the FBI attempting to get access to your browser history with out warrants)[2][3]. Obama even EXPANDED surevellience on his way out of office[4]. Obama also said he was pro whistle blowers we all know what happened to Chelsea.

Let's not even get into the fact that he dropped a bomb on average every 20 minutes of his presidency. The is just 2016[5]

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/surveillance-in-the-obama-era-1... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-w... [4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveill... [5] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-presiden...

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#110

Post by ataturk »

bogomipz wrote: post #104
asimpletune wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pelosi and Feinstein are the worst when it comes to privacy law.

Which is something I find interesting since they are both Democrats from San Francisco - Pelosi(represents S.F, the 12th district) and Feinstein represents California but is born and bread S.F. and served as its' Mayor for a bit.

But they are all big-government statists and they all walk the same way when it comes to invading citizens' privacy. It was a bad law from the start, it will always be a bad law, and it tells you everything you need to know about our current government that they keep renewing this bad law.

And no, it's not a question of "if you have nothing to hide.." it's simple, basic reality--you are not free in any sense of the word if you have East-German type surveillance up your ass 24/7.

Post reply on HN