Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it just puts your VPN provider in the position your ISP was in assuming they both keep similar records.
Well in that case, I would be OK since the VPN I use (ProtonVPN) doesn't keep any logs.
That you know of
Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
231–240 of 293 posts
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#232Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#233Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#234Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The US Senate is a proper subset of Congress, comprising one of its coequal houses, the other being the House of Representatives.
Collectively the two are Congress.
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#236Just 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.
Unless you're worth more than $500M, you're wasting your time. (And on this forum, hey, maybe you hit the startup vestment goldmine, and actually are!)
Years ago, when the Slashdot/Reddit crowd got up in arms about some other terrible law, I actually took the time to look up my Senators' numbers, and call their offices. The aides I talked to acted like I was an insurance telemarketer, and wouldn't/couldn't even tell me their positions on the bill. Needless to say, I became disillusioned with the process.
I've heard a lot of people say that "if enough people bug them," but it's simply not true. Unless you're a campaign donor, and writing checks large enough to stick out from the crowd, you literally don't exist in the US law-making process. I'm sorry, but you just don't.
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -- George Orwell.
For two things to be equal is surely an impossibility, they would be one.
Depends on the definition: https://stackoverflow.com/a/767379
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would become a problem if someone just joined the party with the intent of cashing out the 5k$ and leaving. Maybe you could fix this somehow with smart contracts? idk
if you cash out the $5k you lose candidate status.
“Fine by me, I’m $5k richer now!”
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get the hostility towards requiring a warrant to spy on election candidates. Even if the goal is similar protections for everybody, it's obvious that measures designed to prevent parties from abusing the surveillance apparatus for political ends is a good thing. It's difficult to imagine a better tool for ensuring one side gets muck raked harder than the other.
Aside from the blatantly obvious issue of equal protection of the law, if the people who would have to pass a broader law are already protected by one that is narrowly focused on them, they're less incentivized to pass the broader law. Letting the narrow law pass creates a barrier to passing the broader law.
It goes even further than that. If the politicians are protected by their own special law they are much more likely to write laws that violate the privacy and rights of everyone else because they do not feel threatened by it.
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#240Earlier 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
Assign it but don’t physically give it to them?