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

151–160 of 184 posts

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

#151

Post by ipnon »

dontbenebby wrote: post #111

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 geog…

Pseudo-anonymity is sufficient for those whose life is not in danger (like a journalist or dissenter). Personally identifying yourself to websites is an optional use of the Internet, as is participation in ad networks such as Google and Facebook. You are correct that ad networks have more information than your ISP does. The VPN will protect you from your ISP. Pseudo-anonymity is what protects you from ad networks.

An easy implementation is to provide no personally identifiable information while using the web, and siloing the personally identifiable information when necessary. 1 email for your bank accounts and unemployment registration that uses your real name. A variety of differing emails and logins for all other websites.

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

#152

Post by dontbenebby »

ipnon wrote: post #151
dontbenebby wrote: post #111

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 geog…

Pseudo-anonymity is sufficient for those whose life is not in danger (like a journalist or dissenter). Personally identifying yourself to websites is an optional use of the Internet, as is participation in ad networks such as Google and Facebook. You are correct that ad networks have more information than your ISP does. The VPN will protect you from your ISP. Pseudo-anonymity is what protects you from ad networks. An…

>You are correct that ad networks have more information than your ISP does. The VPN will protect you from your ISP.

So to be clear, they'd get the data from the ISP? I'm not surprised DNS queries get saved but whole URLs is another thing.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am a little bit, that they'd expend the $$$ to store that info longer than necessary for core business functions.

>An easy implementation is to provide no personally identifiable information while using the web, and siloing the personally identifiable information when necessary. 1 email for your bank accounts and unemployment registration that uses your real name. A variety of differing emails and logins for all other websites.

I do this + throw the banking and personal email into Firefox containers.

Guerillamail is really useful for creating stuff like a HN account though it's sadly abused often enough many sites won't let you register using it anymore:

https://www.guerrillamail.com/

(The other issue being requiring SMS auth after an initial signup)

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

#153

Post by kiba »

_8j50 wrote: post #72
lonelappde wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorism has been removed of its meaning since 2001. Terrorism means using violence or threat of violence to influence social or political decisions. Not everything bad is terrorism. A mentally ill person going on a murder-suicide rampage after beijg ignored by a girl is not a terrorist. A person acting in their self-interest in a way that contributes to systemic racism or oppression is not a terrorist. Hunting or t…

When a girl ignores him,he attacked not that girl but a social group out of misogyny or some other socio-political perception of injustice. So it is still terrorism. The point of the attack is to affect political(at the social level) change. This really is similar to jihadist terrorism,jihadism took away american's privacy and mass shooters with gripes against american socio-politics have americans living in trauma o…

Al-qaeda is eradicated but they won, I fear many would credit 9/11 as the begining of the end of america. Much like insurgent warfare,terrorism will be studied as a means of warfare where due to extreme imbalances on weaponry and digital surveillance the only way to fight is by terrorizing your enemy. War is horrible but terrorism is a cancerous form of war where destroying your enemy does not translate to success.

Won what? As far as I know, they didn't achieve their goal of driving out the Americans out of the Middle East. The loss of privacy and rights is incidental to their goals.

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

#155

Post by Floegipoky »

varjag wrote: post #129
bhauer wrote: post #81

I am absolutely no fan of Bernie Sanders. I disagree with him on a majority of policy matters. However, this popular media framing, which blames the failure of this amendment on Bernie Sanders, is unhinged. It's not just this Register article; you'll see the same sniping at Sanders specifically in most articles that carry a negative opinion on the PATRIOT Act. Being absent for the vote is shameful, sure. But how abou…

It failed by one vote. If he did his damn job and showed up it could turn out different.

As somebody else explained, if he had showed up to vote against it the amendment almost certainly would have still failed by 1 vote. The party whips would have just required one of the other "no"s to switch. The reality is that party leadership controls exactly what gets voted on and when, and to a large extent predetermines who is allowed to vote yes and no. The rest is just theater.

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

#156

Post by faceblob2 »

btilly wrote: post #135

A point from Enlightenment Now that I wish was better understood. Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. This should not surprise us. Terrorism is the last available option for a weak interest group that has no better way to make their will felt. Therefore as scary as it is to face, the fact that they are resorting to it is evidence that they are underdogs and we should not be surprised that t…

State-sponsored false-flag terrorism works. Kill a few of your own, raise a flag, shed a tear, and observe the hordes sign up to decimate the one you say is responsible.

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

#157

Post by dowmruxirh »

btilly wrote: post #135

A point from Enlightenment Now that I wish was better understood. Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. This should not surprise us. Terrorism is the last available option for a weak interest group that has no better way to make their will felt. Therefore as scary as it is to face, the fact that they are resorting to it is evidence that they are underdogs and we should not be surprised that t…

What about false-flag terrorism? Creating a highly-public tragedy, announcing the culprit, and ruthlessly pursuing offensive action justified by that initial event?

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

#158

Post by linuxftw »

salawat wrote: post #143
linuxftw wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. Totally untrue. When the US used atomic bombs to level cities in Japan, that was terrorism. The goal was to strike fear into the regime and the people for an unconditional surrender. It was not an attack against the military or government, it was an act of terrorism. When the US uses drone strikes to blow up weddings, that's terrorism. They are not acti…

I actually think there may be a legitimate criticism here if you define demonstrating nuclear weapon/asymmetric warfare capability as employing terror toward political ends and stop there. I'd tread carefully there though. That's a lot of sensitive history you're coloring with a rather unattractive brush. There is a lot that prevents that particular viewpoint from being convincing without dragging down a lot of the f…

> Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope

All terrorists feel justified, or they wouldn't do what they do.

> the label of terrorism in the eyes of Western political discourse necessarily connotes violence of an unjustifiable or unsanctioned by the majority nature

That's not true. There's a definition for terrorism, and it's the use of violence against non-combatants to create fear for the purposes of political change. Most people don't actually know the definition, so they're easily confused.

> Would the secession and war waged by the Southern States

How would secession qualify as terrorism? The battles were mainly among two military parties. Also, the term "Civil Warm" is a misnomer. The most neutral correct term is "War Between the States." Military conscription and execution of defectors, while terrible, also not terrorism, just despotic.

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

#159

Post by Floegipoky »

streb-lo wrote: post #146
salawat wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think there may be a legitimate criticism here if you define demonstrating nuclear weapon/asymmetric warfare capability as employing terror toward political ends and stop there. I'd tread carefully there though. That's a lot of sensitive history you're coloring with a rather unattractive brush. There is a lot that prevents that particular viewpoint from being convincing without dragging down a lot of the f…

> Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously I don't think this is true at all. Maybe if we define the West as America, but even then I think that's a stretch. I can say anecdotally in my circles that the trading of unwitting Japanese civilian lives en masse in exchange for American military lives is looked on with disgust.

I also think it's important to be aware that much of the available intelligence at that time and reasoning behind it was classified, allowing the perpetrators to establish a narrative that went unchallenged for decades. For instance most Americans are completely unaware that the Japanese were actively trying to negotiate a surrender before Hiroshima was bombed. Most Americans are unaware that a ground invasion of the Japanese mainland was not being seriously considered, this ignorance let the government establish the false narrative you allude to. And most Americans aren't aware that American leadership intercepted communications indicating that the Japanese intended to surrender unconditionally if the Soviets entered the war, which happened on the day that Nagasaki was bombed.
Post reply on HN