51–60 of 293 posts
I wonder how broadly they define “internet browsing and search history”. I’m assuming email is somehow included. I wonder if mobile app data falls under the umbrella.
I imagine the intelligence community would try to interpret it as narrowly as possible, ie just the literal URLs you visited and terms you sent to Google.
Do members of the intelligence community have a history of wanting less information than they can get?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect it's because Bernie opposes 215 renewal with or without the amendment.
I doubt this. It makes no sense to not vote for the amendment irrespective of your vote for the larger bill. In other words, Sanders could vote yes on the amendment and no on the bill.
Would a VPN basically make even a warrant useless in obtaining browsing data from your ISP?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine the intelligence community would try to interpret it as narrowly as possible, ie just the literal URLs you visited and terms you sent to Google.
Is this sarcasm? Do members of the intelligence community have a history of wanting less information than they can get?
No, the idea is to limit the scope of what requires a warrant.
I wonder how broadly they define “internet browsing and search history”. I’m assuming email is somehow included. I wonder if mobile app data falls under the umbrella.
It’s supposed that knowing you went to “amazon.com” would be metadata. Knowing you went to “PornHub.com/v/id=Xyz” (or whatever URL would link to a specific video) would be considered content.
Today they are allowed to collect just “metadata” without a warrant. This amendment would have explicitly required a warrant for metadata.
McConnell is proposing another amendment which would clarify the distinction that content can not be obtained without a warrant, but basically maintains the status quo, while also exempting specific types of people or entities.
IANAL, but reading the McConnell amendment almost makes me think there’s a secret court interpretation of the existing law where they decided they could collect “content” as well without a warrant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The president must be at least planning on obstructing the bill, since the only reason they'd need 60 votes would be to overcome a veto. If we treat the absences as very wimpy nay votes, and lump the 2 independents in with the party they caucus with (both Democrat), then the party breakdown looks like this: Democrats: 35 yea, 12 nay, so ~75% in favor. Republicans, 24 yea, 29 nay, so ~45% in favor. The 59 yea votes co…
Unless I’m mistaken, you’d need 66 votes to override a veto - the number 60 is for overriding a filibuster
The minimum to override in the Senate would be 2/3 * 51 = 34 votes.
Is there a senator who is filibustering this bill? It seems that there were 59 yes votes and four absences - how many nays are there, and who is obstructing this bill?
The president must be at least planning on obstructing the bill, since the only reason they'd need 60 votes would be to overcome a veto. If we treat the absences as very wimpy nay votes, and lump the 2 independents in with the party they caucus with (both Democrat), then the party breakdown looks like this: Democrats: 35 yea, 12 nay, so ~75% in favor. Republicans, 24 yea, 29 nay, so ~45% in favor. The 59 yea votes co…
Would a VPN basically make even a warrant useless in obtaining browsing data from your ISP?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, so it could be used to surveil state candidates Willy nilly? No warrant required?
As it is right now, it would allow access to the internet search and browser history of anyone in the world, without probable cause or a warrant. But to be clear, this is just a reduction in friction of the previous process which was to just call a judge of a secret FISA court which no one is really allowed to know the details of. So this is likely just a move to reduce some red tape, and increase data ingress.
This is simplifying the process to imply it’s nothing more than just a phone call away. I do not think any court works like that. They still have to argue their case before a judge of the court which also allows third parties to submit material in the case.
Simply saying “no one” is suppose to know about these courts is portraying this process as something unconstitutional and nothing more than a secret society of government friends. If by no one you actually mean the public, then you have a point. There’s national security concerns around these type of things that you’re ignorantly ignoring.
You act as if this court has no existed for over 40 years and under multiple administrations from both side of the aisles.