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

FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 151 posts

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#71

Post by oh_sigh »

csense wrote: post #43

A couple decades ago when the government wanted to get civil forfeiture powers, they said it was only going to be for the worst organized crime bosses and drug lords. Then within the last few years, a black kid who takes his life savings -- $10,000 cash -- and moves across the country to start a new life is (apparently entirely legally) relieved of it by two police officers and has no means to get it back, despite ne…

If you're referring to the case I think you are, it is pretty clear that that "black kid" was actually a money runner for drug dealers. He claimed to have withdrawn the money from his bank, but could never provide any kind of evidence that he had done this.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#72

Post by giancarlostoro »

krapp wrote: post #62
atom-morgan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misspelled government.

"government" in general didn't decide US law enforcement and intelligence agencies needed to make terrorism a top priority, and it didn't decide the US needed "extrajudicial" options for dealing with terrorism, such as torture, kidnapping and indefinite detainment in a death camp in Cuba, and didn't decide to wage a war against "terrorism." All of these things are the direct result of the Bush Administration taking a…

You're missing some of the things that have been done before the Bush Administration. Operation Northwoods is alarming as it is, and that's back in the early 60's.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#73

Post by sheepleherd »

Zikes wrote: post #58
Aelinsaar wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is to be done, when dicking us over and harshly keeping us in line is profitable, and we keep electing them to do it ?!

This presumes the election process is fair. Gerrymandering, fraud, bribery, voter suppression, it's a wonder we even call the US a democracy anymore.

any creation of voting districts is a Gerrymander. What method do you favor, and how is yours better?

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#74

Post by giancarlostoro »

gherkin0 wrote: post #68
knieveltech wrote: post #63

"The FBI wants to access N without a warrant." Sane answer: no, for all values of N.

If the FBI asks for the power to access N without a warrant, it should be automatically be required to get two warrants from two separate judges to get access.

I'm surprised this hasn't become the standard. We would then have more checks and balances in this regard at the very least.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#75

Post by Zikes »

sheepleherd wrote: post #73
Zikes wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This presumes the election process is fair. Gerrymandering, fraud, bribery, voter suppression, it's a wonder we even call the US a democracy anymore.

any creation of voting districts is a Gerrymander. What method do you favor, and how is yours better?

Wikipedia's definition[1] is "In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries."

It can be clearly recognized where it occurs, and there are plenty of examples in the Wikipedia article. I don't have the skills or knowledge to say exactly how it should be done, only that it shouldn't have extreme obvious political bias.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#76

Post by asksol »

nitrogen wrote: post #10

Call to Firefox devs: restore the option to keep history for a specified number of days. Why was this option ever removed? It originated all the way back in Netscape. Also: make a prominent "clear last hour" option for mobile; I hate following a link from someone and finding a ton of tracking cookies have just been added.

The title seem to suggest this has something to do with browser histories, but as far as I can tell from reading the article it's much worse: they want your ISP to keep a log of the web sites/other services you are using, and they want to get this log by simple request to your ISP (no VSL, subpoena, or warrant).

So restoring this option wouldn't help, maybe only using TOR or some VPN proxy would.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#77

Post by knieveltech »

gherkin0 wrote: post #68
knieveltech wrote: post #63

"The FBI wants to access N without a warrant." Sane answer: no, for all values of N.

If the FBI asks for the power to access N without a warrant, it should be automatically be required to get two warrants from two separate judges to get access.

I like the way you think.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#78

Post by wvenable »

tn13 wrote: post #60
csense wrote: post #43

A couple decades ago when the government wanted to get civil forfeiture powers, they said it was only going to be for the worst organized crime bosses and drug lords. Then within the last few years, a black kid who takes his life savings -- $10,000 cash -- and moves across the country to start a new life is (apparently entirely legally) relieved of it by two police officers and has no means to get it back, despite ne…

Government can not be trusted. Something that the founding fathers and understood and warned centuries ago despite their own inherent flaws. Individual liberty is something that we need to defend actively from the government and that can not happen unless we take a diametrically opposite stance and do not concede even and inch of ground. Example: People who supported civil forfeiture essentially thought that its okay…

Starving the beast doesn't work -- programs and infrastructure you want funded aren't and programs you don't want supported are fully funded. This has always been the way. Furthermore, under funded governments tend to much more corrupt.

You also can't lower taxes without hurting employment and nobody wants higher unemployment.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#79

Post by slavik81 »

sheepleherd wrote: post #73
Zikes wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This presumes the election process is fair. Gerrymandering, fraud, bribery, voter suppression, it's a wonder we even call the US a democracy anymore.

any creation of voting districts is a Gerrymander. What method do you favor, and how is yours better?

That's simply inaccurate. Gerrymandering is specifically the redrawing of electoral districts in a purposefully unfair manner. It's commonly prevented by setting up independent commissions to do the redrawing of districts, rather than allowing the incumbent politicians to draw the lines directly.

It's named after the former Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, who redrew the districts to ensure his party would win the senate. Apparently, he had to draw the districts in rather unusual shapes to achieve this, and they kind of ended up looking like a salamander. Hence, Gerrymandering.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#80

Post by freshyill »

tn13 wrote: post #60
csense wrote: post #43

A couple decades ago when the government wanted to get civil forfeiture powers, they said it was only going to be for the worst organized crime bosses and drug lords. Then within the last few years, a black kid who takes his life savings -- $10,000 cash -- and moves across the country to start a new life is (apparently entirely legally) relieved of it by two police officers and has no means to get it back, despite ne…

Government can not be trusted. Something that the founding fathers and understood and warned centuries ago despite their own inherent flaws. Individual liberty is something that we need to defend actively from the government and that can not happen unless we take a diametrically opposite stance and do not concede even and inch of ground. Example: People who supported civil forfeiture essentially thought that its okay…

You had me until you decided to turn it into a tax thing.
Post reply on HN