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

81–90 of 293 posts

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

#81

Post by toofy »

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?

I would imagine it will contain language which will require a high burden of proof that you’re of high enough stature and not a lowly regular citizen.

edit: I apologize for the inflammatory tone, but I think this is concerning enough of a step forward to warrant a bit of hyperbole.

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

#82

Post by djaque »

djaque wrote: post #66

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.

Whelp... I'm 0/2 for my senators. Here is my letter BTW, feel free to copy it and use it to get in contact with your reps. Look up their votes here [1].

Dear Representative $NAY_VOTER,

I'm writing you to express my disappointment in your recent vote on May 13 to reject Wyden amendment no. 1583. This amendment would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing American's web browsing data. Despite bipartisan support, the amendment failed to garner the required 3/5 majority by only one vote.

The controversial language of section 215 of the Patriot Act provides the government with broad powers to collect information related to federal investigations. Unfortunately, that power extends to the warrant-less collection of American's private information. This even includes innocent and law-abiding citizens who's only relation to an investigation is that their records are considered "relevant" in some manner.

Privacy reform is important now more than ever with the increasing role of technology in our daily lives. Please give me your support in creating meaningful oversight for our country's surveillance programs.

Sincerely,

Djaque

[1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...

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

#83

Post by Ididntdothis »

coronadisaster wrote: post #62
rootusrootus wrote: post #7

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.

> Of course! Wyden again! I'm really happy he is our senator. happy since 1996

He is 71 so maybe in 8 years the Democrats will let him run for president :-). Right now he is still a little too young.

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

#84

Post by thephyber »

throwlaplace wrote: post #63

'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds' -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 faul…

I don't think it's a reasonable comparison to make between WFH managers of consenting employment contracts and the national security apparatus which we didn't get to vote on or opt out of.

The rationale for the Manhattan Project (the impetus for your quote by Oppenheimer) was that the US government thought that if we got the atomic bomb before our national enemies, we would be more virtuous in its usage. That is always the blind faith that US government workers, military, and contractors use to justify working on military/surveillance technology. Until all of those government workers stop deluding themselves into the "exceptionalism" fallacy, the technology used against Americans will continue to outpace our ability to protect against it or perhaps to even know about it.

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

#85

Post by throwlaplace »

thephyber wrote: post #84
throwlaplace wrote: post #63

'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds' -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 faul…

I don't think it's a reasonable comparison to make between WFH managers of consenting employment contracts and the national security apparatus which we didn't get to vote on or opt out of. The rationale for the Manhattan Project (the impetus for your quote by Oppenheimer) was that the US government thought that if we got the atomic bomb before our national enemies, we would be more virtuous in its usage. That is alwa…

i'm constantly so frustrated by the lack of imagination of people on this forum.

employees of some company consented more or less just as much as we did - they consented by staying in the employ and we consented by voting/not voting/not emigrating. in fact we consented more because we at least had a say in representation. is that a silly argument? good i agree - those workers are just as aggrieved as we are in this case.

>more virtuous in its usage

we technologists are deluded in the exact same way. something along the lines of "our code doesn't hurt people who didn't deserve it/consent to it".

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

#86

Post by Melting_Harps »

Short term solution: Well VPNs for all, Ghostery [1] was running a deal on their paid version with a VPN built into their add-on [1].

Long term: The State is making their panopticon ambitions overt now in the public eye, thus spurring on the need to re-design the Internet entirely to avoid this.

Anyone know what Starlink is offering in terms of privacy? Details are sparse for the most part right now, but given their ties to DoD I'm not sure how this will play out. Sounds like a product release presentation is needed to clarify some things.

Edit: I plan on buying Ghostery Midnight but it's Windows/Mac only, so no Linux! I guess these Bitcoin accepting ones will have to do [2].

1: https://www.ghostery.com/midnight/

2: https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/vpn-bitcoin/

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

#87

Post by duckMuppet »

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.

If she were truly a poor representative of her constituents, they would've voted her out long ago. I think she represents them perfectly.

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

#88

Post by taurath »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #80
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?

Its in the interest of every single person in america that has ever googled something they would prefer to not talk about.

It should be on the 5PM, 7PM and 11PM local news, and every cable org.

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

#89

Post by quest88 »

Melting_Harps wrote: post #86

Short term solution: Well VPNs for all, Ghostery [1] was running a deal on their paid version with a VPN built into their add-on [1]. Long term: The State is making their panopticon ambitions overt now in the public eye, thus spurring on the need to re-design the Internet entirely to avoid this. Anyone know what Starlink is offering in terms of privacy? Details are sparse for the most part right now, but given their…

Don't use VPN services: https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29

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

#90

Post by ueu33hyrdd »

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.

I don't get the hostility towards requiring a warrant to spy on election candidates. Even if the goal is similar protections for everybody, it's obvious that measures designed to prevent parties from abusing the surveillance apparatus for political ends is a good thing. It's difficult to imagine a better tool for ensuring one side gets muck raked harder than the other.
Post reply on HN