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

Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

allgov.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 199 posts

Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

#151

Post by raintrees »

This seems a good place for a dose of "what is good for the goose is good for the gander"... Since Congress is employed solely to represent its constituents, maybe all of their communications(public or private, if they are in any relation to their employment) be disseminated far and wide to all of those constituents to monitor those representative's abilities to fulfill their obligations to their constituents.

A period of time observing the sausage-making process of crafting and passing law may be quite a wakeup call for Jane Q. Public....

Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

#152

Post by learn »

mtgx wrote: post #117
shawn-butler wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Sixth Disctrict court of appeals did address this directly in US v Warshak [0]. What this scare article does a good job of is confusing the reader. Unopened email left on a 3rd party server for longer than 180 days was considered discarded or abandoned property. Discarded physical property has never retained a reasonable expectation of privacy (for instance, the police are free to dumpster dive once your property…

But that's a dumb law. If the company can keep my e-mail "forever", then I expect it to be private forever. What kind of arbitrary rule is this that they can start looking into my e-mail after 180 days?

Yeah, talk about feeling like nobody gives a fuck about you and your privacy. WELCOME TO AMERICA MY FRIEND!

Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

#153

Post by Hikari »

tsotha wrote: post #82
woah wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing about monitoring our email that is necessary for security. The war on terror is a giant hoax, more people are killed every year choking on peanut butter. Members of the government are always reaching for more and more control over our lives and power to watch us.

>The war on terror is a giant hoax, more people are killed every year choking on peanut butter. The fact that the Islamists don't kill millions every year doesn't make it a "giant hoax". The fact that they haven't killed more isn't due to a lack of motivation, only to a lack of means. And they've been reaching for the means.

wtf would do you know about it ? if you have nothing to back up your claims then it might be better to just keep it quit.

Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

#155

Post by enraged_camel »

gnaritas wrote: post #34
woah wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing about monitoring our email that is necessary for security. The war on terror is a giant hoax, more people are killed every year choking on peanut butter. Members of the government are always reaching for more and more control over our lives and power to watch us.

Not that I disagree entirely, but looking at deaths prevented isn't really relevant. Terrorism isn't about death, it's about terror, putting people in a state of fear. The war on terror isn't about preventing death, it's about preventing fear. People aren't afraid of choking on peanut butter or car accidents because they feel they have some control over those situations. Terrorism creates fear by removing that sense…

>> Terrorism isn't about death, it's about terror, putting people in a state of fear. The war on terror isn't about preventing death, it's about preventing fear.

Then it is the greatest irony of all time that people have become more fearful of surveillance and persecution by their own governments than some terrorists who live overseas.

Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

#156

Post by tptacek »

mtgx wrote: post #118
tptacek wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NDAA did exactly what this bill purports to do: leave intact an unfortunate status quo. Almost nothing people say about it on message boards is true; it has become a shibboleth for "I pass along public policy gossip without verifying it".

But did it leave it intact or did it enforce it? Why did they need to write in NDAA too that they can do that if there already was written in another law?

I don't understand the first question. The answer to the second question is that the powers granted to the executive under the 2012 NDAA (there's an NDAA every year) are more limited than the blanket authorization to use force granted in 2001.

Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

#157

Post by temp453463343 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #155
gnaritas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I disagree entirely, but looking at deaths prevented isn't really relevant. Terrorism isn't about death, it's about terror, putting people in a state of fear. The war on terror isn't about preventing death, it's about preventing fear. People aren't afraid of choking on peanut butter or car accidents because they feel they have some control over those situations. Terrorism creates fear by removing that sense…

>> Terrorism isn't about death, it's about terror, putting people in a state of fear. The war on terror isn't about preventing death, it's about preventing fear. Then it is the greatest irony of all time that people have become more fearful of surveillance and persecution by their own governments than some terrorists who live overseas.

The vast majority of people don't live in fear of their governments because they don't care. In fact, fear of government controlling out lives is mostly an American collective psychosis. (even then limited to internet activists, survivalists, gun horders etc.)

Not to say it's without merit, but this really doesn't preoccupy people's thoughts in other countries. I've tried to explaining to Japanese and British people that we have guns to prevent potential government oppression and to be able to take our personal protection into our own hands. They look at you ask if you're crazy/paranoid.

The whole slippery slope stuff doesn't resonate at all.

The whole thing basically boils down to: "If I were to potentially at some point in the indefinite future plot anti government activities through my email I want to be sure that big brother doesn't read it"

This just seems ludicrous to most people.

Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

#158

Post by tsotha »

Hikari wrote: post #153
tsotha wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The war on terror is a giant hoax, more people are killed every year choking on peanut butter. The fact that the Islamists don't kill millions every year doesn't make it a "giant hoax". The fact that they haven't killed more isn't due to a lack of motivation, only to a lack of means. And they've been reaching for the means.

wtf would do you know about it ? if you have nothing to back up your claims then it might be better to just keep it quit.

I know documentation was found in Afghanistan outlining attempts to acquire sarin gas for use in a terrorist attack in the US.

On the other hand, maybe it was all faked, right, like the WTC attack? Maybe you should keep it "quit" yourself. And while you're keeping it "quit", take an English class. I would advise keeping it "quit" during the class so the teacher doesn't realize you're not the sharpest tooth on the saw.

Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

#159

Post by roc »

cglace wrote: post #67
gnaritas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there really actual fear today in a western country? Have you met the republican party? Their entire base lives off fear. > I think actual fear would have to come from injuries to someone you know and can feel empathy towards. It's not fear of death or injury, but fear of "other", of change, of being marginalized.

> Have you met the republican party? Their entire base lives off fear. First off not all in the republican party can be characterized this way. You are painting with very broad strokes. Many turn the republican party because they are the closest they can get to their economic beliefs. > It's not fear of death or injury, but fear of "other", of change, of being marginalized. Do you honestly believe this? Do you get yo…

> "Many turn the republican party because they are the closest they can get to their economic beliefs."

So did you choose the word "Beliefs" intentionally to evoke an evidence-light position?

Because Republican Party economic reality is further from those stated beliefs than Democratic Party economic reality.

Re: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

#160

Post by ihsw »

pretoriusB wrote: post #126
ihsw wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government hawks are well aware of this and they will use every chance they get to take the advantage. Maybe it's time we took a stand -- no communication unless it's encrypted or face-to-face.

That only makes you MORE of a suspect and thus a target. Even for eavesdropping devices in your house perhaps... A government that does those sort of things is bad in other ways too -- and can get your ass to wherever it wants at any time. So, if you cannot trust the government not to do these things, then I suggest you try to change the government and the way things are done, instead of trying to hide from them with…

We would need to change all governments simultaneously.

If one doesn't respect personal privacy as official policy then all government organizations will ship their logs to that country for decryption/de-obfuscation/de-whatever -- just the same as tax policies and Cayman Islands et al being 'tax havens.'

As for encryption advocacy attracting unwanted attention: I don't give a damn.

Post reply on HN