281–290 of 293 posts
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.
> McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass. So privacy for those in positions of power but not for us plebes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s fairly well understood that it’s more or less a rubber stamp process[0] I’d wager a phone call or email is likely all that was needed in many cases. By “no one” I mean some sort of counter-balancing entity. I’m not sure why you think I’m acting like this didn’t exist under multiple administrations. I’m aware of that, and not OK with any of it. I was not OK with original passing of the patriot act, or the…
Third parties being able to submit amicus curiaes seem like a counter-balancing entity—dependent on which way they argue.
From Senator Mike Lee's webpage[0]:
The Lee-Leahy amendment will strengthen third-party oversight of the FISA process. Specifically, it requires FISA court judges to appoint an amicus curae (a neutral third-party observer) in any case involving a “sensitive investigative matter” so long as the FISA court does not determine it to be inappropriate.
The amendment will also empower the amicus to raise any issue with the court at any time and give both the amicus and the FISA court access to all documents and information related to the surveillance application.
0: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/5/senate-pa...
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.
> McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass. So privacy for those in positions of power but not for us plebes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has a very Slack vibe to it that I can dig.
No love for the Church of the SubGenious?
For those curious:
This is just backwards. People in power should always have to justify their actions to us. Always. They should always be questioned. This (in theory) is how we ensure their power isn’t abused. We should have privacy while they do not. A lack of privacy should be a cost to the power they’re entrusted with. If it’s legal for them to sift through our lives while they refuse to be questioned, and they act insulted that w…
"People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." 100% agree that the tradeoff of power should be a loss of privacy.
We have hit a wall where our leaders react with vitriol when asked what they’re doing; mcconnell’s pushing for an exemption for those in power, pushing for them to have privacy while actively voting laws into place which drastically reduce ours should concern every single one of us–at least as much as Snowden’s docs revealed to us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You've invented Tor. 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…
And re dynamic circuits, I did a crude hack: https://github.com/mirimir/vpnchains
I only use Tor via nested VPN chains. The VPNs mainly provide backup anonymity, in case Tor circuits are compromised. And they also anonymize me vs Tor use, which may avoid attention.
When I don't care so much about anonymity, I just use nested VPN chains. Throughput is 5-10 times that for Tor, latency is lower, and I'm not limited to TCP.
~ John Steinbeck
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well in that case, I would be OK since the VPN I use (ProtonVPN) doesn't keep any logs.
most VPN will tell you they don't keep log, which is probably not true