141–150 of 293 posts
Keep that in mind next time someone riles about how Bernie is a champion for the average American. I, for one, am glad he will never be President.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Just use a damn VPN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My take is a little more nuanced. I believe this still needs to get approved back in the House. If this amendment had passed, the Patriot act renewal would have been more palatable when it gets there, and moderate democrats would have had a much harder time rejecting the bill there. I just can't imagine how the house could possibly pass the legislation that the Senate just approved. In this context, it wasn't as crit…
The Patriot Act is getting renewed in the House with or without this amendment.
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…
Even calling it a rubber stamp is an exceedingly generous definition of probable cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, according to that link, you should be using one in this case: "You are on a known-hostile network (eg. a public airport WiFi access point, or an ISP that is known to use MITM), and you want to work around that." An internet connection from an ISP operating under a government that logs your browsing history is a "known-hostile network".
This law would almost certainly be exercised via Google and not the ISP, which can't see the contents of your browsing history anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The secret court has reviewed your criticisms, in secret, and finds them to be completely unwarranted.
Would have been more accurate to say: The secret court has reviewed your criticisms, in secret, and finds them to be [redacted]. Govern yourself accordingly.
The secret court has [redacted].