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

Cloud Act – Improve law enforcement access to data stored across borders

congress.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Cloud Act – Improve law enforcement access to data stored across borders

#31

Post by kevin_b_er »

dkhenry wrote: post #11
tptacek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still pretty convinced the CLOUD act is a disaster but the Lawfare article makes some persuasive points: * There already is foreign access to US data about non-citizens under the MLA process, which is slow but has very few safeguards or privacy controls, unlike this new proposed process. * In the absence of sustainable process, there's good evidence that foreign governments are simply going to require data locali…

On the executive branch overreach portion it appears congress has some review authority. I am fine with the president being able to preform some actions, but I am always a fan of having their be public or at least congressional visibility and accountability.

And what of the Judicial branch? The bill is trying to ban it from reviewing executive branch actions. The actions of both the legislative and executive branches are subject to the highest law in the land. This bill represents a fundamental attempt to bypass the highest law in the land: The Constitution of the United States of America. The judicial branch enforces a check and balance against illegal acts by the other branches.

So why is this line in here: “(c) Limitation on judicial review.—A determination or certification made by the Attorney General under subsection (b) shall not be subject to judicial or administrative review.

So why are they attempting to claim their assertions of compliance with the highest law in the land is not subject to judicial review?

Re: Cloud Act – Improve law enforcement access to data stored across borders

#32

Post by kevin_b_er »

shaki-dora wrote: post #10

This is a terribly written hit piece devoid of any meaningful information. The linked analysis is far better: https://www.justsecurity.org/53705/bill-give-foreign-governm... And for the opposite perspective be sure to read https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-cloud-act-good-privacy-and-h... This really isn’t as obvious as one might think.

It ends the Wiretap Act for all foreign powers at the pleasure of the President. It will try to end privacy afforded by the 4th Amendment. It will try to prevent Judicial review of Executive branch acts.

It is as obvious as need be.

Re: Cloud Act – Improve law enforcement access to data stored across borders

#33

Post by tptacek »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #31
dkhenry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the executive branch overreach portion it appears congress has some review authority. I am fine with the president being able to preform some actions, but I am always a fan of having their be public or at least congressional visibility and accountability.

And what of the Judicial branch? The bill is trying to ban it from reviewing executive branch actions. The actions of both the legislative and executive branches are subject to the highest law in the land. This bill represents a fundamental attempt to bypass the highest law in the land: The Constitution of the United States of America. The judicial branch enforces a check and balance against illegal acts by the other…

That's not how the Constitution works. There's a history of statutes that restrict judicial review over rulemaking. Statutes can say that to clarify the intent of Congress in delegating authority to the executive. To the extent that it's reasonable for them to delegate without review --- where "reasonable" means "the courts agree --- SCOTUS has upheld them.

A law that actually foreclosed on a Constitutional power of an Article III court would simply be held unconstitutional.

This "controversy" strikes me as similar to the routine controversies of Presidential executive orders "making new laws", which, of course, they cannot in general do, but people think they can because it sounds like they can.

Re: Cloud Act – Improve law enforcement access to data stored across borders

#34

Post by non_sequitur »

mikecb wrote: post #20
bluetwo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is a good overview of their intentions. Why is this a problem?

Because Congress' intentions are taken into account only after the actual text, and most of the time not at all (or they would have written their intentions clearly within the enforceable provisions.)

This is actually incorrect. Courts including the Supreme Court will take into account "legislative intent" when interpreting a law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

Re: Cloud Act – Improve law enforcement access to data stored across borders

#35

Post by tptacek »

non_sequitur wrote: post #34
mikecb wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Congress' intentions are taken into account only after the actual text, and most of the time not at all (or they would have written their intentions clearly within the enforceable provisions.)

This is actually incorrect. Courts including the Supreme Court will take into account "legislative intent" when interpreting a law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

You just said the same thing he did, added a Wikipedia link, and called him incorrect.

There should be a name for this. A "triple HN" or something.

Re: Cloud Act – Improve law enforcement access to data stored across borders

#36

Post by tyingq »

tptacek wrote: post #35
non_sequitur wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually incorrect. Courts including the Supreme Court will take into account "legislative intent" when interpreting a law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

You just said the same thing he did, added a Wikipedia link, and called him incorrect. There should be a name for this. A "triple HN" or something.

pedaHNtic²?

Re: Cloud Act – Improve law enforcement access to data stored across borders

#38

Post by nl »

tptacek wrote: post #35
non_sequitur wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually incorrect. Courts including the Supreme Court will take into account "legislative intent" when interpreting a law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

You just said the same thing he did, added a Wikipedia link, and called him incorrect. There should be a name for this. A "triple HN" or something.

The irony of the "non_sequitur" user missing the logical clause sequences and saying it was incorrect is quite amusing.

Re: Cloud Act – Improve law enforcement access to data stored across borders

#40

Post by Spooky23 »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #29

Note that they've forbidden judicial review. The disclosure merely has to be promised by Trump's subordinates that it doesn't violate your constitutional rights and the Judicial Branch is banned from reviewing it? Unconstitutional attempt to remove the Judicial branch from reviewing illegal acts of Congress and illegal acts by the Executive branch and thus an illegal law. Are the "executive agreements" actually treat…

You can't forbid judicial review. The supreme court has the ultimate power.
Post reply on HN