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

151–160 of 293 posts

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

#151

Post by gkoberger »

As a Bernie supporter, I'm disappointed by his lack of a YES vote. We at least deserve a statement. I'm going to suggest a potential explanation, but I'm still disappointed by the lack of vote and/or statement.

Based on how Patty Murray (D) has said she would have voted YES but wasn't able to get to DC in time, it's clear it was never going to pass to begin with. This happens often – someone like Mitch McConnell might whip the votes, realize they're ahead, and allow a few Republicans that are at-risk to vote YES to provide cover for them in the future. Remember, even if you count the two Independents as Democrats, there's still 6 more Republicans. We've seen this with Susan Collins a lot; if Republicans don't need her vote she'll vote against them. But when they need it, she votes with the party like clockwork.

So, now we get to be mad at Sanders and Murray (the Democrats who weren't in DC), and nobody blames the 37 Republicans who actually killed it. Remember that McConnell decides what is voted on, and he always knows the votes. Maybe the one exception ever was McCain saving Obamacare.

I feel certain Sanders would have voted YES. He's historically been mostly pro-Snowden, anti-surveillance, and pro-whistleblowers (it's nuanced; for example he thinks Snowden should be prosecuted but also thinks what he did was right and that he should get a plea deal).

(Not the point, but it's insane Senators have to be physically present, especially given the situation. At least one Senator missed the vote due to quarantine. Why are we making a 78 year old man physically fly to DC to vote, and do so in a chamber full of at least one person who has had COVID-19 recently?)

Like I said, I'm still disappointed we haven't even gotten a statement from Sanders yet. But this whole thing has been on my mind a lot today.

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

#152

Post by rayiner »

pstuart wrote: post #120

Shouldn't one's personal data be a Fourth Amendment issue?

It’s not your personal data. It’s Google’s log of requests made to and carried out by Google’s servers. It’s not covered by the literal text of the fourth amendment—which, as you correctly paraphrased, applies to one’s own person and property. The fourth amendment was also never understood at the time it was written to apply to third party business records, which is what your search history is. (While we didn’t have search engines in 1789, we had all sorts of commercial businesses, from banks to accountants to merchants, who kept sensitive customer records. Indeed, for at least 400 years, such records have been obtainable in civil suits with just a subpoena.)

I think it would be a good idea to require a warrant in such cases. But it’s not a 4th amendment issue.

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

#153

Post by Reelin »

pstuart wrote: post #120

Shouldn't one's personal data be a Fourth Amendment issue?

Yes it ought to. Unfortunately the current logic seems to be (approximately) that by voluntarily using a third party system the data is no longer your personal property.

The obvious issue with this is that (for example) it seems to treat a Google Docs spreadsheet differently than one stored locally. The way the law is currently worded simply isn't sufficient (IMO) now that the internet exists.

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

#154

Post by kenhwang »

gkoberger wrote: post #151

As a Bernie supporter, I'm disappointed by his lack of a YES vote. We at least deserve a statement. I'm going to suggest a potential explanation, but I'm still disappointed by the lack of vote and/or statement. Based on how Patty Murray (D) has said she would have voted YES but wasn't able to get to DC in time, it's clear it was never going to pass to begin with. This happens often – someone like Mitch McConnell migh…

I agree that this likely wouldn't have passed even with Bernie since McConnell can easily whip a vote to switch.

That being said, this puts Bernie's incompetence at politicking in the spotlight. Any half decent politician would've been able to deflect, Murray is a perfect example of how easy it is.

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

#155

Post by CalChris »

vxNsr wrote: post #112
CalChris wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. First it has to be brought to the floor (not automatic) in each house with quorums present. It then takes 2/3s vote of members present in both houses. The minimum to override in the Senate would be 2/3 * 51 = 34 votes.

What? the Senate has 100 members+VP, whats 51?

The VP would never even vote in an override.

51 is the minimum for a Senate quorum [1] (the VP isn't a member and wouldn't count) and you need 2/3s of members present after the Senate is quorate to vote for an override. The vote itself has to be quorate since it will require a roll call to establish the count. There are a lot of procedural rules+hurdles. You don't just need 2/3s of 100.

[1] https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm

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

#156

Post by toofy »

This is just backwards.

People in power should always have to justify their actions to us. Always. They should always be questioned. This (in theory) is how we ensure their power isn’t abused.

We should have privacy while they do not. A lack of privacy should be a cost to the power they’re entrusted with.

If it’s legal for them to sift through our lives while they refuse to be questioned, and they act insulted that we dare question their actions, we have gone off the rails.

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

#157

Post by gkoberger »

kenhwang wrote: post #154
gkoberger wrote: post #151

As a Bernie supporter, I'm disappointed by his lack of a YES vote. We at least deserve a statement. I'm going to suggest a potential explanation, but I'm still disappointed by the lack of vote and/or statement. Based on how Patty Murray (D) has said she would have voted YES but wasn't able to get to DC in time, it's clear it was never going to pass to begin with. This happens often – someone like Mitch McConnell migh…

I agree that this likely wouldn't have passed even with Bernie since McConnell can easily whip a vote to switch. That being said, this puts Bernie's incompetence at politicking in the spotlight. Any half decent politician would've been able to deflect, Murray is a perfect example of how easy it is.

I think his "incompetence at politicking" is what draws a lot of people to him (since he comes off as much more genuine and real), however it's a "live by the sword, die by the sword" situation. There have been a frustrating number of times where I felt a simple tweet could have saved a lot of bad optics.

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

#158

Post by throwaway17_17 »

pstuart wrote: post #120

Shouldn't one's personal data be a Fourth Amendment issue?

This type of data collection falls under the 3rd party rulings, i.e. your data is not protected by the 4th Amendment once it is given to a 3rd party. Not saying this is a good thing, just that this is the state of 4th Amendment interpretation.

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

#159

Post by Reelin »

rayiner wrote: post #152
pstuart wrote: post #120

Shouldn't one's personal data be a Fourth Amendment issue?

It’s not your personal data. It’s Google’s log of requests made to and carried out by Google’s servers. It’s not covered by the literal text of the fourth amendment—which, as you correctly paraphrased, applies to one’s own person and property. The fourth amendment was also never understood at the time it was written to apply to third party business records, which is what your search history is. (While we didn’t have…

I'd go so far as to argue that the 4th amendment ought to be amended to apply to such data. Such customer records may have been sensitive in the past, but they've become far more personal and all encompassing.
Post reply on HN