Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
theregister.co.uk
Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
1–10 of 184 posts
Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
#2I'm curious at how the article implies that DoH is going do anything. I'd imagine CloudFlare, etc. would comply with FBI requests just as much as your local ISP.
Factor in co-operation from CDN's and really that covers a vast array of data that the US Government could access.
Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
#3Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to.
For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school shooters not terrorists? They have a social/political gripe and the terror is their way to get their voice out, avenge (like jihad) or inflict change. So why are they failing so bad even after almost 20 years of patriot act?
Politicians don't want to be blamed because they know the next terrorist attack will happen soon and it can't be prevented,except the politicians that gut the patriot act will be blamed for it. On the flip side,information on voters,tracking them like this helps politicians
Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
#4I do most of my browsing in private mode anyway. I'm usually pretty careful to never put things onto websites that I don't want people to find publicly as well. The US has no strong privacy protections, so you should just assume that nobody has your best interest in mind. This includes HN, Reddit, and the FAANG giants. Although Apple is probably the only one that isn't strongly incentivized to violate your privacy.
Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
#5I do most of my browsing in private mode anyway. I'm usually pretty careful to never put things onto websites that I don't want people to find publicly as well. The US has no strong privacy protections, so you should just assume that nobody has your best interest in mind. This includes HN, Reddit, and the FAANG giants. Although Apple is probably the only one that isn't strongly incentivized to violate your privacy.
The data collected is collected en masse at the ISP level. Using incognito mode won't do anything for these searches.
Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
#6If the bill does not pass in any form, the Patriot Act dies — do not amended anything, let the Patriot Act bill die.
Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
#7I do most of my browsing in private mode anyway. I'm usually pretty careful to never put things onto websites that I don't want people to find publicly as well. The US has no strong privacy protections, so you should just assume that nobody has your best interest in mind. This includes HN, Reddit, and the FAANG giants. Although Apple is probably the only one that isn't strongly incentivized to violate your privacy.
> I do most of my browsing in private mode anyway.
What do you think “private mode” is, exactly?
I’ll tell you what it is: It’s a mode where your local web browser doesn’t save its history, which only means that people who has physical access to your device cannot see this saved history. Your ISP can still see everything of consequence, and your DoH provider can see most of it.
Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
#8I do most of my browsing in private mode anyway. I'm usually pretty careful to never put things onto websites that I don't want people to find publicly as well. The US has no strong privacy protections, so you should just assume that nobody has your best interest in mind. This includes HN, Reddit, and the FAANG giants. Although Apple is probably the only one that isn't strongly incentivized to violate your privacy.
The data collected is collected en masse at the ISP level. Using incognito mode won't do anything for these searches.
This doesn't work so well when you a) disallow tracking cookies and b) don't use your ISP's DNS servers.
I used to work directly with these big ISPs, and I can assure you they aren't very sophisticated. Even if they log every IP you send a packet to, and they know every domain that points to each of those IPs, they can't know exactly what you requested or which particular website you visited provided these websites use HTTPS.
Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The data collected is collected en masse at the ISP level. Using incognito mode won't do anything for these searches.
This doesn't work so well when you a) disallow tracking cookies and b) don't use your ISP's DNS servers. I used to work directly with these big ISPs, and I can assure you they aren't very sophisticated. Even if they log every IP you send a packet to, and they know every domain that points to each of those IPs, they can't know exactly what you requested or which particular website you visited provided these websites u…
If you're not using DNS over HTTPS, then they're still tracking your DNS queries regardless of which server you use.
Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The data collected is collected en masse at the ISP level. Using incognito mode won't do anything for these searches.
This doesn't work so well when you a) disallow tracking cookies and b) don't use your ISP's DNS servers. I used to work directly with these big ISPs, and I can assure you they aren't very sophisticated. Even if they log every IP you send a packet to, and they know every domain that points to each of those IPs, they can't know exactly what you requested or which particular website you visited provided these websites u…
I'm curious about a case like duckduckgo, which uses https, but puts your search term in the url.