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

211–220 of 293 posts

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

#211

Post by godelski »

quest88 wrote: post #89
Melting_Harps wrote: post #86

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…

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

This is dubious. While I agree VPNs oversell themselves, who do you trust more? Comcast or your VPN (Mullvad,PIA,whatever)? I think many of us have no trust for Comcast.

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

#212

Post by voldacar »

godelski wrote: post #201
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...

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?

This would become a problem if someone just joined the party with the intent of cashing out the 5k$ and leaving. Maybe you could fix this somehow with smart contracts? idk

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

#213

Post by mirimir »

godelski wrote: post #202
rrix2 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It'd be dismissed on national security grounds.

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

#214

Post by marvin »

mirimir wrote: post #209
0xdeadb00f wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are VPNs legal in China? It would be hilarious to set up a chain of VPN connections that are each in a jurisdiction that will not cooperate with one another.

E.g. one connection each in China, Russia and USA, and three more in the opposite direction of geopolitical allegiance if you’re super paranoid.

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

#215

Post by LatteLazy »

toofy wrote: post #79
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.

> 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.

The way this works is that no one is excluded. They collect everything blindly, then sort through for what they want. That was the issue when they falsely claimed US citizens were excluded. That’s the issue when they say the same about election candidates or sitting senators or whoever.

These programs are all or nothing by design.

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

#216

Post by croon »

thephyber wrote: post #10

PopVox record for the bill which was to be amended[1] Congress.gov article for the same bill[2] I'm thoroughly confused about the current process. It looks like HR6172 is the House "version" of the extension on the "USA FREEDOM Act" thru 2023 and S3421[3] is the Senate attempt to do the same. I can't find any references on Congress.gov which references Ron Wyden's proposed amendment. [1] https://www.popvox.com/us/fed…

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/116th-congress/senate-ame...

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

#217

Post by croon »

mc32 wrote: post #17
ABeeSea wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernie decided to just not vote even though his vote would have changed the outcome.

It’s a strange vote. I mean it’s completely bipartisan. And a couple on either side and an independent abstained. Guess there was some good horse trading.

Not that strange. McConnell knows all the votes before allowing a vote on anything. Then he lets any R in sensitive states vote YAY up to <59 votes.

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

#218

Post by GauntletWizard »

skoskie wrote: post #131
ueu33hyrdd wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Steele was identified as connected to a foreign government influence campaign as well. Maybe I’m just out of the loop, but this needs a source.

Steele is very publically a former MI6 agent, and while the British are our allies, that counts in and of itself.

However, it's also fact that Steele himself was well known to Russian intelligence, and while it's clear he was no friend to them he was a known enemy - They were specifically trying to feed him disinformation[1][2]

Did he bite bad bait? That's the question that doubters bring up. The "pee tape" thing is so bizarre I think it's likely true, but on the other hand I think that at this point Trump could just own it.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/politics/christopher-steele-f... [2]https://www.wsj.com/articles/steele-dossier-disinformation-u...

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

#219

Post by app4soft »

ObsoleteNerd wrote: post #189
giancarlostoro wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can even make a political party out of it where everyone in the party is a candidate.

The Privacy Party is born.

All Aboard the Pirate Ship![0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pirate_Party

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

#220

Post by celticninja »

voldacar wrote: post #212
godelski wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This would become a problem if someone just joined the party with the intent of cashing out the 5k$ and leaving. Maybe you could fix this somehow with smart contracts? idk

if you cash out the $5k you lose candidate status.
Post reply on HN