Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

221–230 of 293 posts

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

#221
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not at all familiar with Chinese VPN services. But it's my impression that the Chinese authorities mostly care about domestic VPN use. Citizens are limited to approved VPNs, which are obviously backdoored.

More generally, as long as you're not interacting with domestic Chinese people, authorities don't care much about what you're doing. That's what I've seen providers claim in darknet forums. And that was my experience when I leased VPS in Hong Kong. Once I made it clear that I wouldn't be interacting with domestic Chinese people, all was cool.

I have used one Russian VPN service, Insorg. They're one of the oldest. I've read about others, but don't recall names. And it's my impression that Russian authorities also mostly care about interactions with citizens.

So anyway, I typically start with a mainstream VPN service. Then I chain one or two notoriously hard to coerce ones. And for Mirimir, IVPN is the final one. Because I've written stuff for them, basically, so using IVPN earlier in chains would be stupid.

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

#222
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Are VPNs legal in China?

No, but their use is extremely common anyway.

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

#223
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

But you are my equal, are you not?

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would have been more accurate to say: The secret court has reviewed your criticisms, in secret, and finds them to be [redacted]. Govern yourself accordingly.

Slightly more accurate: The secret court has [redacted].

More realistically:

This week on Fox News, [...].

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

#225
This is a really sloppy article.

"But the amendment fell short by one vote of the required 60 votes to pass the chamber."

No, it needed 60 for cloture, to stop debate. Pass/fail requires a simple majority in a subsequent vote.

"Assuming none of the amendments pass, the final bill is likely to skip the House — which passed its version of the bill earlier this year — and await the president’s (sic) signature."

Uh, that's not how it works. A bill isn't enrolled (sent to the President) until the identical contents pass both houses. So, if the House has a distinct version with any difference whatsoever, it can't proceed.

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

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought we were an autonomous collective.

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

#227
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.

And where is Bernie Sanders? It passed by one vote. He missed it.

It's a pandemic, and as far as i remember they didn't finalise a rule to allow senators to vote remotely[1]. I don't know if this is why Bernie missed it, but 3 other senators besides him missed it too.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2020/05/12/congress-...

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

#228

Wyden is probably one of the few senators, who is consistent on this issue. Everyone else, at best, pays lip service or repeats talking points about terrorism and the need to protect America from the ever present danger.

Ron Paul is also quite consistent. He's done a good job of keeping the Trump side of the Republican party happy with him through his words while still being the Republican senator who votes against Trump the most.

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

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#230
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

Oh, that is great!

I would like to add, just think of the chaos at the primaries if the act of declaring candidacy one also declares they are running for the R|D nomination. The voting machines can barely deal with 20 presidential candidates. Imagine what would happen if you had to thousands of people running for a congressional seat!

Post reply on HN