Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 184 posts

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#111

Post by dontbenebby »

As a practical matter who do they get this "browsing history" from? I see a lot of people suggesting folks use a VPN.

But if they're getting the history via companies like Google, they'd link together your records just as easily.

I see VPNs often being touted as anonymity tools, when it's my understand not all VPNS have multiple users sharing one IP.

(Ex: it's my understanding that an Algo VPN might obscure your geographic location, it's an IP unique to you. Not clear on how a commercial service like Tunnelbear works - many services tout no logging but seem to stay mum on if IPs are shared)

If any of the above is incorrect, please feel free to jump in and reply but it looks to me like moving as much browsing over to Tor as possible is the best move if you're worried about anonymity and not simply someone owning the wifi you are connected to.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#112

Post by duxup »

jellicle wrote: post #108
duxup wrote: post #34

I'm a bit impressed how close it was to passing.

Don't take that for actual closeness. In many votes including this one, Senators may want to vote against leadership but will only do so if permitted. So if, say, 5 more Democrats had insisted on voting yes to make the amendment pass, McConnell would have told 5 more Republicans that they were disallowed from voting against it, and the amendment would have failed by... one vote. The dynamic here is that Republican po…

I don't doubt the premise can happen, I am not inclined to assume it is the case automatically.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#113

Post by remram »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #58
JoeSmithson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

I do stats for a living, and while I think it's good to back up claims with data when possible, inductive reasoning is still a validate tool for understanding the world. The logic is that active, dedicated terrorist groups already know: "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." The reasoning that knowing this information…

You assume that every terrorist (or most terrorists) acts rationally and has the knowledge you know. That is a huge assumption for your reasoning to work.

I think terrorists make mistakes (or take risks), and I'm not convinced that we catch all of those either.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#114

Post by dontbenebby »

_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual 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 s…

>Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms

Then why is terrorist content discussed so much in content moderation circles, specifically the fact that content moderators are viewing it so often it induces PTSD in them?

ISIS has put out high definition videos of executions. That's the opposite of "not touching digital comms"

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21255870/facebook-content...

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#115

Post by economicslol »

dontbenebby wrote: post #114
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual 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 s…

>Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Then why is terrorist content discussed so much in content moderation circles, specifically the fact that content moderators are viewing it so often it induces PTSD in them? ISIS has put out high definition videos of executions. That's the opposite of "not touching digital comms" https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/1…

They're not doing that to plan things, it's used intentionally for PR. Drive fear into those that watch it and recruit others who are excited. Pretty clear those are different.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#116

Post by bsanr2 »

isoskeles wrote: post #46
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual 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 s…

> Are school shooters not terrorists? They are not. Terrorism is supposed to be a political tool. Whereas school shooters are often just deranged or troubled people lashing out.

The prototypical school shooters (the Columbine duo) filled their notebooks with misogynistic, white supremacist screeds. If you ever thought it strange the hysteria over video game violence and Satanism that emerged from that attack, it's because your instincts were correct. The media was reticent to cover what was really driving their violence because the conversation would have been uncomfortable for the sizable portion of Americans who agreed with their views on women and minorities but felt no need to shoot up a high school.

Unfortunately, the narrative that resulted colored later discourse with less-than-accurate assumptions about the nature of mass school shootings. They're overwhelmingly not carried out by bullied loners, but instead by entitled, ostracized bullies who aren't stopped because they don't fit the American conceptualization of who commits violence. To that point, even high-profile black and brown mass shooters tend not to be gangbangers or whatever, but men with military or law enforcement backgrounds.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#117

Post by hedora »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #105

I don’t understand. Isn’t the surveillance program illegal? Wouldn’t this be passing a law that would require the government follow the law? Serious question, I was under the impression this was equivalent to warrantless wire tapping, which was already illegal.

The executive branch (under GWB, Obama and Trump) has argued the law is ambiguous. Since congress just considered this amendment and rejected it, it will be harder for the Supreme Court to rule that the executive branch misinterpreted the law when it concluded that 100% digital surveillance is OK.

We already have secret courts and indefinite pre-trial detention in the US. This is another small step in the creation of a police state.

The precedent this vote created only took 37 votes in a chamber that is skewed much further right than the electorate. It would take about 55% of the vote to get the senate to be 50% democrat. That would give them enough procedural control to stop this sort of thing (if they bothered; they didn’t under Obama...)

This is not democracy in action. This is democracy in its death throes.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#118

Post by vlan0 »

dontbenebby wrote: post #114
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual 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 s…

>Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Then why is terrorist content discussed so much in content moderation circles, specifically the fact that content moderators are viewing it so often it induces PTSD in them? ISIS has put out high definition videos of executions. That's the opposite of "not touching digital comms" https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/1…

>ISIS has put out high definition videos of executions. That's the opposite of "not touching digital comms"

I don't think you're being fair to the context. They've been showboating killing online for decades. But showboating should not be conflated using digital communications to coordinate their efforts. I'm not saying they don't use digital communications. But this is hardly proof of that.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#119

Post by polskno288 »

_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual 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 s…

Washington politicians know American workers won’t organize a work stoppage

Or even put up a serious threat of one

Tech workers especially have little excuse, since it’s a matter of leaving that work laptop closed

No one in tech seems to remember SOPA

Workers seem oblivious to what recent teacher strikes achieved

Hong Kong protests in the face of a tyrant

Y’all bloviate all over your screens

Who is more exceptional?

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#120

Post by bsanr2 »

hedora wrote: post #93
taneq wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorism is violence with the intention of creating fear to further a political goal. If a kid feels victimized and wants to hurt the people they feel responsible, that's not terrorism. If a kid wants to hurt bullies with the intention that it will make other bullies afraid and so reduce the overall amount of bullying in schools then that would fit the definition.

By your definition (which I think is overly broad), most police officers are terrorists, and so is anyone that engages in self defense, or even jurors that vote “guilty” in the hope of deferring future crimes. You either need to narrow the definition or carve out explicit exceptions. If you are carving out exceptions, the definition is just “people we don’t like”. I guess that is pretty close to the definition prosec…

"Individuals acting in support of the rule of law" is generally the exception, but there is something useful in the implications you've brought up. That is, the uncomfortable proximity unlawful judgment and execution has to lawful judgment and execution; they're both ideologically-driven.

That they're similar in this manner doesn't mean that we can't have laws and law enforcement because they're inherently violent and tyrannical or anything, but it does inform how seriously and dispassionately we should approach their means and ends. I don't think that it's particularly radical to call an abuse of judicial power terrorism. What else to call, for example, a judge who robs entire communities of their youth in exchange for backroom deals with private prisons?

Post reply on HN