21–30 of 494 posts
I'm tired of these cutesy backronyms that they try to come up with to influence the public's perception of a law. "EARN IT"? What the fuck? It should be outright illegal to pass laws whose acronyms spell words. But, of course, that'll never happen, because who would willingly give up such a juicy tool for gaming the system?
https://act.eff.org/action/the-earn-it-act-is-back-seeking-t...
4th amendment text: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM…
Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.
I'm so tired. I wish we didn't have to keep going through constant attacks on our privacy. I know they're hoping that people will give up after a point out of weariness, and I'm afraid when it comes to many people they're right.
4th amendment text: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM…
> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.
4th amendment text: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM…
> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.
I know we shouldn't assume malice when incompetence explains things, but I genuinely do think a lot of people who run governments do actually think they should not be affected by the same rules they want to apply to everyone else.
I'm tired of these cutesy backronyms that they try to come up with to influence the public's perception of a law. "EARN IT"? What the fuck? It should be outright illegal to pass laws whose acronyms spell words. But, of course, that'll never happen, because who would willingly give up such a juicy tool for gaming the system?
Remember the PATRIOT Act?
Never mind that modern American "patriotism" isn't anything of the sort, but is much closer to nationalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.
Why do Californians keep re-electing her?
4th amendment text: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM…
> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.
A bewildering and curious lot our leaders are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our privacy. Which billionaire travels to which island while abusing which child, financed by what money, will remain happily hidden away.
There is a Bible verse that says every deed done in darkness shall be named in the light. At times like these, I wish the deity who inspired it was a little more proactive.