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

Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#11

Post by jakeogh »

dragonwriter wrote: post #9
Teeer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Trump probably supports the CLOUD Act.

The Administration has backed the push for it (in part, to resolve an ongoing legal dispute with Microsoft, who also supports it), so it's pretty hard (though given Trump's other rapid reversals, not impossible) to see Trump causing a shutdown by vetoing the omnibus spending bill over it's inclusion.

Found:

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/22/another-terrible-privacy-la...

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/22/supreme-court-emails-store...

Although neither source the support claim.

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#13

Post by mnm1 »

Of course we lost. The people always lose. I stopped using cloud services without end to end encryption, except email/sms, years ago, soon after Snowden's revelations. I simply don't see any other solution. I just wish more people cared, that we could do a real boycott and hurt some companies. A few corporations going out of business would be a miniscule price to pay for privacy. Not enough will ever care though. It's sad but true. Convenience trumps everything.

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#14

Post by [deleted] »

jakeogh wrote: post #11
dragonwriter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Administration has backed the push for it (in part, to resolve an ongoing legal dispute with Microsoft, who also supports it), so it's pretty hard (though given Trump's other rapid reversals, not impossible) to see Trump causing a shutdown by vetoing the omnibus spending bill over it's inclusion.

Found: https://www.salon.com/2018/03/22/another-terrible-privacy-la... http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/22/supreme-court-emails-store... Although neither source the support claim.

[deleted]

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#16

Post by chopin »

I am certainly no supporter of the CLOUD act but the examples given on OP are not convincing to me. What would prevent Slack from notifying all parties of the request (the Londoner and her friends)? As well I'd expect that there are barriers in UK which would require a warrant to get the data.

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#18

Post by walterbell »

chopin wrote: post #16

I am certainly no supporter of the CLOUD act but the examples given on OP are not convincing to me. What would prevent Slack from notifying all parties of the request (the Londoner and her friends)? As well I'd expect that there are barriers in UK which would require a warrant to get the data.

From https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/cloud-act-dangerous-ex...

"The legislation still:

- Includes a weak standard for review that does not rise to the protections of the warrant requirement under the 4th Amendment.

- Fails to require foreign law enforcement to seek individualized and prior judicial review.

- Grants real-time access and interception to foreign law enforcement without requiring the heightened warrant standards that U.S. police have to adhere to under the Wiretap Act.

- Fails to place adequate limits on the category and severity of crimes for this type of agreement.

- Fails to require notice on any level – to the person targeted, to the country where the person resides, and to the country where the data is stored."

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#19

Post by chopin »

walterbell wrote: post #18
chopin wrote: post #16

I am certainly no supporter of the CLOUD act but the examples given on OP are not convincing to me. What would prevent Slack from notifying all parties of the request (the Londoner and her friends)? As well I'd expect that there are barriers in UK which would require a warrant to get the data.

From https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/cloud-act-dangerous-ex... "The legislation still: - Includes a weak standard for review that does not rise to the protections of the warrant requirement under the 4th Amendment. - Fails to require foreign law enforcement to seek individualized and prior judicial review. - Grants real-time access and interception to foreign law enforcement without requiring the heightened war…

I've seen that. However the London police may require a warrant under UK law, nevertheless. And Slack may notify, nevertheless.

I think EFF could come up with better examples. At least, most of these examples are not threatening for US persons. I'd think better examples would involve what US LEO can do unwarranted. In that case people may be inclined to exert more pressure on their representatives.

The law is bad but I think it could be painted in worse light.

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#20

Post by syshum »

dragonwriter wrote: post #7
jakeogh wrote: post #3

This could be an excellent use of the Presidential veto. Whatever your political leanings, omnibus bills are a terrible outcome of the false left right paradigm. Everybody gets to toss in the stuff they "want" to support but know their constituents do not. EFF: You wrote pages about it, but failed to mention the president still needs to sign it. It's a pretty glaring omission...

> This could be an excellent use of the Presidential veto. It would be insanity for the President to veto a spending bill needed to avert a shutdown because it included a provision the Administration has publicly supported and actively sought. > Whatever your political leanings, omnibus bills are a terrible outcome Omnibus spending bills are fine — the particular financial provisions of any one may be good or bad, bu…

>but the concept is fine; they are a completely sensible way to set government finances rather than doing it piecemeal.

No they are not fine, not has they are used today. Congress as normal has abused the power of these bill this being a prime example.

This is why we need a Constitutional Amendment to bring the US Constitution in line with 41 US States where the Single Subject Rule is enforced.

We also need to bring back the Line Item Veto

We also need a mandatory Public Comment period, I propose 1 day for every 10 pages of Text... so for this bill it would have required 223 days of public comment before a vote would have been allowed, instead of what 12 hours this one got from the time it was submitted until it was being voted on

Post reply on HN