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

Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 293 posts

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#71

Post by docbrown »

kitotik wrote: post #64
docbrown wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 think it’s fairly well understood that it’s more or less a rubber stamp process[0] 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…

Third parties being able to submit amicus curiaes seem like a counter-balancing entity—dependent on which way they argue.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#72

Post by rcurry »

kitotik wrote: post #43
mc32 wrote: post #38

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.

The secret court has reviewed your criticisms, in secret, and finds them to be completely unwarranted.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#73

Post by acdha »

rectang wrote: post #61
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #12

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.

On these max-out-surveillance votes, Dianne Feinstein poorly represents the massive tech industry presence in her state.

Or does she represent companies like Google, Facebook, or Palantir who are more concerned with pro-privacy laws cutting into their revenue? The politics of tech industry workers are not identical to their management and the latter steer a LOT more money into politics.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#74

Post by throwlaplace »

ashtonkem wrote: post #46
kitotik wrote: post #19

Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surveillance on American citizens, which of course is not expected to pass. McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.

Would this mean that applying for a federal election is a free pass out of warrant less surveillance?

brilliant! talk about civil disobedience if like hundreds of thousands applied

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#75

Post by Alex3917 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #46
kitotik wrote: post #19

Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surveillance on American citizens, which of course is not expected to pass. McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.

Would this mean that applying for a federal election is a free pass out of warrant less surveillance?

And do you just need to spend ten minutes making a static webpage saying that you're running for federal office as a write-in candidate, or do you actually need the signatures to get on the ballot?

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#76

Post by thephyber »

coronadisaster wrote: post #70
advisedwang wrote: post #33

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.

You must be kidding? the only time they are looking only at "meta" data is when they don't have the (mental/physical) capacity to analyze the rest... look at this for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/when-can-the-government-read... (they can read any emails that are older than 6 months without a warrant.... since 1986, if they are stored on a 3rd party server)

You misunderstand both what your parent's intention was and what is being interpreted in a narrow fashion.

The amendment would add a new burden for whitelisted data points. Your parent was saying that the "intelligence community" would likely play legal definition games to retain the most data points which don't have a new higher burden of proof.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#77

Post by pletsch »

ashtonkem wrote: post #46
kitotik wrote: post #19

Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surveillance on American citizens, which of course is not expected to pass. McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.

Would this mean that applying for a federal election is a free pass out of warrant less surveillance?

Everyone who is allowed should run for President.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#78

Post by bathtub365 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #46
kitotik wrote: post #19

Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surveillance on American citizens, which of course is not expected to pass. McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.

Would this mean that applying for a federal election is a free pass out of warrant less surveillance?

If you also have the resources to go to court to defend your totally legitimate bid, sure

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#79

Post by toofy »

kitotik wrote: post #19

Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surveillance on American citizens, which of course is not expected to pass. McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.

> McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.

So privacy for those in positions of power but not for us plebes.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#80

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

kitotik wrote: post #19

Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surveillance on American citizens, which of course is not expected to pass. McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.

> the lack of media coverage on this is appalling

What media do you think should cover this? FOX News? CNN? MSNBC? Do you think Rachel Maddow should report on this? Who is going to report on this kind of stuff?

Post reply on HN