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

71–80 of 184 posts

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

#71

Post by ryanlol »

dgellow wrote: post #52
diablo1 wrote: post #50

Define 'your' browsing history. Where I live you can buy a SIM card with cash, load it with credit and surf on a 3G/4G network, without having to register the SIM or attach your legal name to it in any way. I can also encrypt my phone, turn on permanent incognito mode, disable Javascript, and have uBlock Origin running to stop trackers. Good luck trying to pin my legal name to a particular website visit. Then there's…

> Where I live you can buy a SIM card with cash, load it with credit and surf on a 3G/4G network, without having to register the SIM or attach your legal name to it in any way. Where is that? My experience in Europe and Thailand is that I have to sign documents and show a proof of identity.

In Europe “I’m sorry, I didn’t take my passport with me, but I remember my passport number” has had a 100% success rate for me.

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

#72

Post by _8j50 »

lonelappde wrote: post #38
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school s…

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 over active shooter drills and gun toting teachers. Not only are they both terrorism, they both won!

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.

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

#73

Post by kingkawn »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #58
JoeSmithson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

I do stats for a living, and while I think it's good to back up claims with data when possible, inductive reasoning is still a validate tool for understanding the world. The logic is that active, dedicated terrorist groups already know: "They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to." The reasoning that knowing this information…

"inductive reasoning is still a validate tool for understanding the world."

Thank you so much for saying this.

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

#74

Post by JoeSmithson »

tadhgds wrote: post #53
JoeSmithson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

I'm not really sure why you think this needs substantiation. The logic goes like this: It would be utterly stupid for terrorist groups to rely on digital communications simply because of how well locked down the various government agencies have made it. We assume that they are not utterly stupid. I don't think it's a crazy statement or needing further justification. I doubt terrorist groups are that sophisticated but…

It needs further justification because it's contradicted by the evidence cited to support it.

"Terrorists don't use digital communications[0]

[0] Example of a terrorist identified and killed via surveillance of their digital communications"

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

#75

Post by piffey »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #48
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school s…

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Encrypt...

Yeah. The truth is that groups like ISIS use Telegram pretty heavily. Same with some of the Persian threat actor groups, Hezbollah, others.

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

#76

Post by nelaboras »

notthemessiah wrote: post #23

When we look at the kinds of things these surveillance powers are used for, it's a glimpse of how it's abused. Thanks to FOIA requests, we found that the Boston Regional Intelligence Center was using their surveillance capabilities to spy on Occupy Boston during the Boston Marathon that was bombed, despite the ostensible aim of the center being to coordinate local and federal intelligence capabilities and despite the…

There is probably also an issue of too much information. All these massive efforts generate data that is barely ever used as the time and resources just aren't there.

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

#77

Post by JoeSmithson »

piffey wrote: post #75
JoeSmithson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Encrypt... Yeah. The truth is that groups like ISIS use Telegram pretty heavily. Same with some of the Persian threat actor groups, Hezbollah, others.

IS was/is a quasi nation state! What do these people think it runs off of carrier pigeons and smoke signals?

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

#78

Post by rrtthu »

foob4r wrote: post #60

I would be surprised if many of the common public believed that warrantless searches of anyone are reasonable, while exempting federal elected officials from the same law. Now's a good time to call you senator (if they voted against this) and tell them that they fucked up by weakening your rights and freedoms. Then, get a VPN or better use Tor as much as you can.

If TOR had fiver-level speed I'd be on all the time. The trade off is just too high.

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

#79

Post by foob4r »

rrtthu wrote: post #78
foob4r wrote: post #60

I would be surprised if many of the common public believed that warrantless searches of anyone are reasonable, while exempting federal elected officials from the same law. Now's a good time to call you senator (if they voted against this) and tell them that they fucked up by weakening your rights and freedoms. Then, get a VPN or better use Tor as much as you can.

If TOR had fiver-level speed I'd be on all the time. The trade off is just too high.

True although it's getting better every day.

I do use it frequently and do run a few relays, and that's probably the only way to improve it.

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

#80

Post by TechBro8615 »

dgellow wrote: post #52
diablo1 wrote: post #50

Define 'your' browsing history. Where I live you can buy a SIM card with cash, load it with credit and surf on a 3G/4G network, without having to register the SIM or attach your legal name to it in any way. I can also encrypt my phone, turn on permanent incognito mode, disable Javascript, and have uBlock Origin running to stop trackers. Good luck trying to pin my legal name to a particular website visit. Then there's…

> Where I live you can buy a SIM card with cash, load it with credit and surf on a 3G/4G network, without having to register the SIM or attach your legal name to it in any way. Where is that? My experience in Europe and Thailand is that I have to sign documents and show a proof of identity.

I was in Croatia a few years ago and bought a SIM card at a TISAK kiosk on the beach. Similarly I’ve had my UK SIM card for three years and never had to show my ID.

Although this may have changed recently.

Post reply on HN