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

191–200 of 293 posts

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

#191

Post by PlasticTank »

ezoe wrote: post #184
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.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -- George Orwell.

For two things to be equal is surely an impossibility, they would be one.

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

#192

Post by skuhn »

gkoberger wrote: post #157
kenhwang wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is part of his appeal, and I like a lot of what Bernie has to say. But you can't win if you don't play the game and politics is definitely a game.

Hillary and Biden snaring the nomination ahead of Bernie show how thoroughly the establishment Democrats can school him on politics. His appeal to certain voters is great, but he still has to play the game to some degree.

It's not remotely a coincidence that all of those candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden near-simultaneously -- meanwhile the best Bernie could get was de Blasio and Williamson. Failing to even get Warren to endorse him isn't a failure of his ideology, it's a case of political incompetence.

I hope someone (Warren? others?) echoes a lot of what he has to say and then actually executes within the political system we have today to accomplish those things. Within my lifetime would be nice.

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

#193

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

ezoe wrote: post #184
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.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -- George Orwell.

Wow, an Animal Farm quote on Hacker News. I've seen it all.

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

#194

Post by trynewideas »

duckMuppet wrote: post #87
rectang wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's complicated? 538[1] (yeah, I know) did a decent dive into this back in 2018: as her electorate has moved left, she's moved right. The theories for that are pretty simple.

- The Dem/GOP split swung from nearly even to 45-25 over her tenure, so there's no longer any credible Republican competition to force her back toward her original left-of-center leanings

- She can outraise even the most serious Democratic challenger by more than 10-to-1

- She appeals more to pro-business, homeowner, and technocrat Democrats and independents than any other group, who in turn power that fundraising and also are responsible for Democratic plurality in the voter base

So we wind up with this dichotomy of her winning every election and getting booed out of nearly every town hall. The question going forward is whether she can hang on to her seat as easily in a recession California as in a booming one, especially if her constituency shifts away from her under economic stress just as quickly as it shifted in her favor.

1: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/california-has-left-dia...

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

#195

Post by croon »

yumraj wrote: post #164
Alex3917 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

The web rings of 2020.

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

#196

Post by Reelin »

rayiner wrote: post #166
Reelin wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hey I completely agree that it's how the law is currently written.

Reflecting a bit more on my Google Docs example (which differs from the original browsing history topic) I believe it was faulty. It would be a bit odd to treat bits I own as not mine simply because they're stored on hardware owned by someone else. In fact on it's face it appears to go against existing precedent that the 4th amendment applies to a rented storage unit.

When it comes to sensitive data like browsing history though, regardless of legal ownership it certainly feels like a form of unreasonable search. I really can't blame the original authors for failing to anticipate the existence of the internet though.

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

#197

Post by lihaciudaniel »

xwdv wrote: post #128
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.

Just use a damn VPN.

VPN is asking for your financial support

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

#198

Post by lihaciudaniel »

djaque wrote: post #82
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 dat…

Love how the website is madein Drupal

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

#199

Post by croon »

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…

That source does not say what you claim it does.

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

#200

Post by aperrien »

Descartes1 wrote: post #186
closeparen wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>An individual running for a seat in the House or Senate or for the office of U.S. President becomes a candidate when he or she raises or spends more than $5,000 in contributions or expenditures. One generally needs a certain number of petition signatures to appear on a ballot, but apparently not needed just to legally be a candidate. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registeri...

Do you have to actually spend that $5000? Or can you just have it "raised"?

Create a nonprofit to accept the "raised" contribution, and then swap it with another candidate in the pool for "consulting fees"...
Post reply on HN