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

241–250 of 293 posts

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

#241

Post by dsfyu404ed »

trynewideas wrote: post #194
duckMuppet wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she were truly a poor representative of her constituents, they would've voted her out long ago. I think she represents them perfectly.

It's complicated? 538[1] (yeah, I know) did a decent dive into this back in 2018: as her electorate has moved left, she's moved right. The theories for that are pretty simple. - The Dem/GOP split swung from nearly even to 45-25 over her tenure, so there's no longer any credible Republican competition to force her back toward her original left-of-center leanings - She can outraise even the most serious Democratic chal…

I'd be careful of trying to describe Feinsten in terms of left/right when both parties official platforms both include things that are both for and against government micromanagement of people.

She has been very, very consistently pro-authoritarian her entire career. The hate for her is truly bipartisan.

The reason she's still in office isn't because pro-business types like her and give her money. It's because she has so much influence over the democratic party in her state that she can make sure nobody worth voting for every gets enough funding to mount a successful primary against her.

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

#242

Post by travisporter »

trynewideas wrote: post #194
duckMuppet wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she were truly a poor representative of her constituents, they would've voted her out long ago. I think she represents them perfectly.

It's complicated? 538[1] (yeah, I know) did a decent dive into this back in 2018: as her electorate has moved left, she's moved right. The theories for that are pretty simple. - The Dem/GOP split swung from nearly even to 45-25 over her tenure, so there's no longer any credible Republican competition to force her back toward her original left-of-center leanings - She can outraise even the most serious Democratic chal…

What’s wrong with 538? Must be out of the loop

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

#243

Post by Beltiras »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #80
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.

> 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?

Maddow has actually reported on privacy issues.

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

#244

Post by hanklazard »

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.

To your point, I just visited the NYTimes.com, and no mention of this very important story on the front page. Clicked on "Politics" and "U.S.", and I still cannot find a single mention of this story. A complete failure.

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

#245

Post by bulldog13 »

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.

It's almost like most news is .... fake.

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

#246

Post by [deleted] »

rhizome wrote: post #113
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?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, everybody. Right now on the NYT side there's a story about renewable resources being used more than coal. Great news, but is it more important than the government snarfing your browser history? A California congressional election? We have college students considering gap years, LA Times has a spurious Wuhan-interest story and a whole 1/3 sidebar dedicated to the death count. There are plenty of st…

[deleted]

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

#247

Post by zajio1am »

judge2020 wrote: post #118
brobinson wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, according to that link, you should be using one in this case: "You are on a known-hostile network (eg. a public airport WiFi access point, or an ISP that is known to use MITM), and you want to work around that." An internet connection from an ISP operating under a government that logs your browsing history is a "known-hostile network".

This law would almost certainly be exercised via Google and not the ISP, which can't see the contents of your browsing history anyways.

How could Google see the content of a browsing history?

They can see searching history, but generally not browsing history (unless someone uses something like synchronizing browser history through Google account).

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

#248

Post by zajio1am »

kitotik wrote: post #147
judge2020 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This law would almost certainly be exercised via Google and not the ISP, which can't see the contents of your browsing history anyways.

But most ISPs will have DNS lookup records. Most users aren’t savvy enough to set their own DNS servers. I’m not sure on the current status of DNS over HTTPS, but I’d imagine .gov could just compel cloudflare or whoever to provide logs.

Do ISPs generally have DNS lookup past records? That seems like something that would be costly with little benefit. I run small ISP and only enable DNS logging when tracing some problem.

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

#249

Post by Spooky23 »

ueu33hyrdd wrote: post #125
Spooky23 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one, we have a POTUS that may have benefited knowingly or unknowingly by means of a foreign intelligence influence campaign. This gives those entities a free pass to influence campaigns or to hide other types of spying relating to an incumbent who is running for re-election. Seems like a bad time to make such a change in the law. There’s also the whole equal protection under law issue — a core tenant of American…

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…

That is even more fuel to my point.

It isn't about POTUS, it's about the notion that preventing US counter intelligence from doing their jobs with respect to illegal influence on political campaigns. If what you say is true, and the Clinton campaign was seeking foreign assistance, shouldn't we know about and prevent that?

It is not a party a vs. party b issue.

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

#250

Post by boredgamer2 »

aperrien wrote: post #200
Descartes1 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have to actually spend that $5000? Or can you just have it "raised"?

Create a nonprofit to accept the "raised" contribution, and then swap it with another candidate in the pool for "consulting fees"...

> Create a nonprofit

I like the enthusiasm, but this would get you slapped by the IRS (eventually). Any other ideas?

Maybe if we just pay each other in a ring through a legal escrow? Everyone puts in $5,001, the escrow pays everyone back $5000.

Post reply on HN