251–260 of 293 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not your personal data. It’s Google’s log of requests made to and carried out by Google’s servers. It’s not covered by the literal text of the fourth amendment—which, as you correctly paraphrased, applies to one’s own person and property. The fourth amendment was also never understood at the time it was written to apply to third party business records, which is what your search history is. (While we didn’t have…
I'd go so far as to argue that the 4th amendment ought to be amended to apply to such data. Such customer records may have been sensitive in the past, but they've become far more personal and all encompassing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bernie not voting yes for this is the final nail in the coffin for my enthusiasm towards him. I'd still take him over others, but he's no longer the firebrand anti-authoritarian that I took him for initially.
What were the other nails?
As a Bernie supporter, I'm disappointed by his lack of a YES vote. We at least deserve a statement. I'm going to suggest a potential explanation, but I'm still disappointed by the lack of vote and/or statement. Based on how Patty Murray (D) has said she would have voted YES but wasn't able to get to DC in time, it's clear it was never going to pass to begin with. This happens often – someone like Mitch McConnell migh…
>nobody blames the 37 Republicans who actually killed it I think we _do_ blame the 37 Republicans, it's just that that's not a particularly new emotion to feel at this point. It's no secret that the GOP pulls this stuff (as, like you noted, with Collins). Currently, though, Bernie (and Murray, who at least commented) have the image of not being present for what, even if only optically, feels like an incredibly import…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And do you just need to spend ten minutes making a static webpage saying that you're running for federal office as a write-in candidate, or do you actually need the signatures to get on the ballot?
We can all sign for each other..
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.
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).
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.
Although Tor is better, because the connection reroutes dynamically. And worse, because anyone can volunteer to be an entrypoint or endpoint - this matters because a very well-resourced adversary could conceivably control both your entrypoint and your endpoint, and use a timing correlation attack to de-anonymize you. But I don't know that nested VPNs are immune to that either, given the level of invasive surveillance 5-eyes has over the entire internet.