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

131–140 of 293 posts

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

#131

Post by skoskie »

ueu33hyrdd wrote: post #125
Spooky23 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one, we have a POTUS that may have benefited knowingly or unknowingly by means of a foreign intelligence influence campaign. This gives those entities a free pass to influence campaigns or to hide other types of spying relating to an incumbent who is running for re-election. Seems like a bad time to make such a change in the law. There’s also the whole equal protection under law issue — a core tenant of American…

You could literally say the same thing about the Steele Dossier sponsored by the Clinton Campaign, Steele was identified as connected to a foreign government influence campaign as well. A candidate literally cooperated with a foreign actor with undisclosed Russian ties to generate evidence against their opponent which they knew would be disseminated by the American IC. Not having these protections just incentivizes w…

> Steele was identified as connected to a foreign government influence campaign as well.

Maybe I’m just out of the loop, but this needs a source.

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

#132

Post by fiblye »

bathtub365 wrote: post #78
ashtonkem wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It only takes one guy going to court and winning to affirm the rights for everyone.

Or one guy going to court and losing to screw everyone.

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

#133

Post by FillardMillmore »

u801e wrote: post #103
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.

Given the issues in terms of lives lost and economic damage due to the pandemic, the outcome of a terrorist attack doesn't really seem that bad. I would hope that the public would see through the farce of the security apparatus and let the patriot act expire and get rid of organizations like the TSA.

I think if we took a public vote on the Patriot Act today, it would be nullified by tomorrow. Unfortunately, that's not how we do things and congress has been renewing it for some time, even stealthily. (p.s. apologies for not being able to find a more credible news site for this story - believe it or not, it wasn't widely reported on late last year)

https://therealnews.com/stories/patriot-act-renewal-sneaks-t...

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

#134

Post by clairity »

dehrmann wrote: post #126
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…

Most traffic is over HTTPS, so VPNs aren't as useful as they once were. The advice of "don't go to your bank's website on coffee shop wifi" is 10-15 years out-of-date. Yes, HTTPS has some holes, but HSTS and certificate pinning help. If you're this level of worried, you should make sure you're either signed out go Google/Gmail or have your search history turned off. A VPN offers zero added protection. there. IIRC, Go…

it's a pretty good time to stop using google all around (not just search), so there's no history at all to seize.

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

#135

Post by yellowapple »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #99
djaque wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dat…

2/2 For once, I don't have to be embarrassed about Duckworth.

2/2 here in Nevada, too.

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

#137

Post by stallmanite »

ueu33hyrdd wrote: post #121
javajosh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It violates the core principle of equal justice. What if we only required search or arrest warrants for those with more than $10M in assets? Your comment would still apply, and would be more obviously unjust.

Whether it harmonizes perfectly with the spirit of equal justice or not is irrelevant to whether or not it still represents an improvement over the status quo. Your hypothetical is similarly asanine and works mainly as a straw man because, as far as the integrity of the democratic process, there's a clear difference between shielding individuals competing in a public election and random rich people on the street. You…

Is formalizing a two-tier surveillance regime an improvement over the status quo?

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

#138

Post by skuhn »

ABeeSea wrote: post #11
ejstronge wrote: post #2

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?

Bernie decided to just not vote even though his vote would have changed the outcome.

Bernie hasn't voted yet since the senate reconvened May 4th. There has been no explanation that I'm aware of for why he isn't voting.

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033/vo...

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

#140

Post by skuhn »

filoleg wrote: post #25
fzeroracer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't spread falsehoods. Bernie's vote wouldn't have mattered unless he voted in favor of the bill, in which case the bill would've passed. An absent vote is the same thing as a nay vote in the Senate. To pass this amendment it requires 60 affirmative votes, of which there were 59.

So, if the Bernie voted “yes” (which is consistent with his usual political alignment), then the amendemnt would have passed, right? If yes, then how do you derive “his vote wouldn’t have mattered” from this?

I do wonder why Bernie didn't vote (and why some people voted against this), but it's also possible that it wouldn't have mattered.

The real voting is often done at the party whip level. If McConnell knew Bernie was going to show up and vote, it's possible that another Republican would have voted nay.

Post reply on HN