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

161–170 of 293 posts

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

#161

Post by rayiner »

Reelin wrote: post #159
rayiner wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we can’t even pass a law protecting such data—how can we amend the constitution to the same effect?

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

#162

Post by Klonoar »

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…

>nobody blames the 37 Republicans who actually killed it

I think we _do_ blame the 37 Republicans, it's just that that's not a particularly new emotion to feel at this point. It's no secret that the GOP pulls this stuff (as, like you noted, with Collins).

Currently, though, Bernie (and Murray, who at least commented) have the image of not being present for what, even if only optically, feels like an incredibly important job. I've had to say this to a few people today: you can be equally annoyed with with the people who voted for it, the GOP who brought it, and those who weren't there to try and stop it to begin with.

Everyone on this forum knows what's at stake here, so it's frustrating to see the "one vote missing" here.

Edit: a word.

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

#163

Post by yumraj »

np_tedious wrote: post #105
toofy wrote: post #79

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.

Do they have to be viable candidates? I don't mind being in a permanent state of casual campaigning

That is indeed a great idea. Where and how do I sign up.

It would be a great act of civil disobedience.

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

#164

Post by yumraj »

Alex3917 wrote: post #75
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?

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?

We can all sign for each other..

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

#165

Post by Spooky23 »

skoskie wrote: post #129
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…

> Declaring a vague category of citizen out of bounds of the law is absurd. Yet it’s hardly new for congress to exempt themselves from the laws they pass. Political campaigns are exempt from robocalls for instance. It’s an unfortunate reality.

That’s a little different as it relates to political speech.

Prohibiting law enforcement/intelligence used in national defense is very different.

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

#166

Post by rayiner »

Reelin wrote: post #153
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.

A Google doc is bits encoded onto Google’s property (its servers). A local Excel spreadsheet is bits encoded onto my property (my computer). The law treats them differently because they are totally different.

Yes, there is a bunch of fancy technology that makes it look and feel like the two things are the same. But why should a technological illusion trump physical reality? In reality, you can tell where the bits are and who owns the physical thing that the bits are on. The fourth amendment very neatly and cleanly delineates between the two scenarios based on who owns the relevant “papers and effects.”

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

#167

Post by dvtrn »

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.

Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling.

I often encourage (and practice myself) looking for a tip email address to your favorite outlets and sending them...well a tip when there’s a story going on they haven’t yet reported, but one feels especially is need of wider dissemination.

Feels almost civic.

Strongly encouraging it here, too :)

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

#168

Post by henryfjordan »

brobinson wrote: post #91
quest88 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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".

You have to consider the threat through the whole request.

You start on your computer and jump to the VPN instead of the destination website. Is the VPN hosted in a different country that refuses to work the US? Do you trust them to not do anything else shady? Do you trust that the encryption you are using will not be broken before your death, because the NSA is logging traffic to other countries, especially ones that won't cooperate with the US.

Then you have to hop from the VPN to the destination website anyway, is that jump really more secure than the jump from your device directly to the destination? Is the destination site tracking you?

VPNs are for moving your traffic off the airport network or Starbucks wifi, not defeating a nation state.

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

#170

Post by Der_Einzige »

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…

Bernie not voting yes for this is the final nail in the coffin for my enthusiasm towards him. I'd still take him over others, but he's no longer the firebrand anti-authoritarian that I took him for initially.
Post reply on HN