61–70 of 293 posts
Wyden is probably one of the few senators, who is consistent on this issue. Everyone else, at best, pays lip service or repeats talking points about terrorism and the need to protect America from the ever present danger.
Of course! Wyden again! I'm really happy he is our senator. I wish there were more like-minded people in congress. Too bad he couldn't quite get all the necessary votes.
happy since 1996
-Robert Oppenheimer
we did this to ourselves. we built these tools that are now at the disposal of people with malicious intentions. in another thread about surveillance of WFH employees everyone is aghast that managers would use such tools. again: we did this to ourselves.
you can shift the blame any number of times around the loop of responsibilities
it's not my fault it's my boss's fault -> it's not my fault it's the government's fault -> it's not my fault it's the constituency's fault -> it's not my fault it's the business's fault
and so on. someone has to admit fault and break the loop. for my part this year i left a dod funded project even though the money was easy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. 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 supp…
I’d wager a phone call or email is likely all that was needed in many cases.
By “no one” I mean some sort of counter-balancing entity.
I’m not sure why you think I’m acting like this didn’t exist under multiple administrations. I’m aware of that, and not OK with any of it.
I was not OK with original passing of the patriot act, or the continued renewal by both parties.
Look elsewhere for partisanship, I’m an equal opportunity dissenter.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
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…
Where did you get this information? I tried to figure it out myself but was unable to find a source.
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…
> 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. The veto override requires a 2/3 majority. The 60-vote threshold is required to end a filibuster.
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?
The thing at question was an amendment to add additional proof for access to "internet browsing and search history" data, so if the "intelligence community" defines that term as narrowly as possible, (assuming the "USA FREEDOM Act", the bill which was to be amended, is renewed) then the potential future restriction is applied to fewer data points.
Just a reminder that if you're upset about this, politics is an active process. I'm going to look up my senator's votes right now and send them an email if they were one of the nay votes.
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.