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

201–210 of 293 posts

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

#201

Post by godelski »

closeparen wrote: post #174
np_tedious wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>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...

So we start a party where we all sign to get each other on the ballot and donate to a pool that allocates $5k to each of us? Can this $5k just be moved around per candidate which counts as spending?

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

#202

Post by godelski »

rrix2 wrote: post #176
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?

yeah the NSA will put a note in your file saying DO NOT SPY THIS PERSON and if someone sees that note and spies anyways, you can engage in a long and ultimately fruitless battle against the US DoJ.

Class action lawsuit for "the privacy party", where everyone is a candidate?

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

#203

Post by AnthonyMouse »

trynewideas wrote: post #190
Klonoar wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 import…

For additional context, Bernie hasn't voted in any of the 10 roll call votes so far in May.[1] He's not campaigning anymore. Hell, he was streaming on Twitch this evening. As noted up thread, the GOP would've just moved the goalposts by turning one of their swing votes if there was any danger of him putting a vote in for this. But he was batting .000 on the month going into today, so it was an easy bet. 1: https://ww…

> As noted up thread, the GOP would've just moved the goalposts by turning one of their swing votes if there was any danger of him putting a vote in for this.

That's exactly why he should've showed up. The swing votes are swing votes because voting that way is unpopular in their district. It makes it hurt more to do the wrong thing. "Meh, it would've passed anyway" lets the people doing wrong get off too easy.

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

#204

Post by ta17711771 »

taurath wrote: post #88
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the lack of media coverage on this is appalling What media do you think should cover this? FOX News? CNN? MSNBC? Do you think Rachel Maddow should report on this? Who is going to report on this kind of stuff?

Its in the interest of every single person in america that has ever googled something they would prefer to not talk about. It should be on the 5PM, 7PM and 11PM local news, and every cable org.

What companies are those channels owned by?

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

#205

Post by croon »

danShumway wrote: post #173
ueu33hyrdd wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you have a broken system, and you allow people in power to fix it in targeted ways that only affect them, then it will never get fixed for ordinary people. Your point might hold true if the people being exempted from surveillance weren't also the people deciding who can be exempted from surveillance. But since they are, it is counterproductive to the privacy cause to allow Congress to give itself these kinds of sp…

Small correction, but these amendments originate in the Senate, not Congress.

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

#206

Post by greggman3 »

pletsch wrote: post #77
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?

Everyone who is allowed should run for President.

So no protection for those under 35 or who immigrated legally?

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

#207

Post by chrisco255 »

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

I nominate np_tedious for President, along with the rest of Hacker News.

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

#209

Post by mirimir »

0xdeadb00f wrote: post #143
xwdv wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use a damn VPN.

And when a court order requests the provider hand over your information?

Just use ~3 VPNs in a nested chain. So an adversary would need data from all three. Better yet, have the middle one be in a jurisdiction that doesn't cooperate with your adversary's.

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

#210

Post by mirimir »

rrix2 wrote: post #175
0xdeadb00f wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when a court order requests the provider hand over your information?

That's what the other six VPNs are for, right?

Right, you have multiple personas, which are using branched/nested chains.
Post reply on HN