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

Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 293 posts

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#91

Post by brobinson »

quest88 wrote: post #89
Melting_Harps wrote: post #86

Short term solution: Well VPNs for all, Ghostery [1] was running a deal on their paid version with a VPN built into their add-on [1]. Long term: The State is making their panopticon ambitions overt now in the public eye, thus spurring on the need to re-design the Internet entirely to avoid this. Anyone know what Starlink is offering in terms of privacy? Details are sparse for the most part right now, but given their…

Don't use VPN services: https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29

But, according to that link, you should be using one in this case:

"You are on a known-hostile network (eg. a public airport WiFi access point, or an ISP that is known to use MITM), and you want to work around that."

An internet connection from an ISP operating under a government that logs your browsing history is a "known-hostile network".

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#92

Post by javajosh »

ueu33hyrdd wrote: post #90
kitotik wrote: post #19

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.

I don't get the hostility towards requiring a warrant to spy on election candidates. Even if the goal is similar protections for everybody, it's obvious that measures designed to prevent parties from abusing the surveillance apparatus for political ends is a good thing. It's difficult to imagine a better tool for ensuring one side gets muck raked harder than the other.

It violates the core principle of equal justice. What if we only required search or arrest warrants for those with more than $10M in assets? Your comment would still apply, and would be more obviously unjust.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#93

Post by loeg »

rectang wrote: post #61
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #12

Wyden is probably one of the few senators, who is consistent on this issue. Everyone else, at best, pays lip service or repeats talking points about terrorism and the need to protect America from the ever present danger.

On these max-out-surveillance votes, Dianne Feinstein poorly represents the massive tech industry presence in her state.

Pretty disappointed that my rep (Patty Murray, D-WA) did not vote on the amendment.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#94

Post by blurbleblurble »

dragonwriter wrote: post #48
coldcode wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it was merely a replacement of something already in, and thus does not need to be returned to the house.

The House has already passed the surveillance renewal bill, so unless the Senate passes the House bill with at least one amendment (so it's not technically the same bill), it doesn't have to go back to the House.

I've been reading that Mitch McConnell's changes, the ones that would expressly allow warrantless surveillance, are a "new amendment". Wouldn't that kind of reporting imply that this amendment hasn't yet been cleared in the house?

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#95

Post by blurbleblurble »

coldcode wrote: post #45
blurbleblurble wrote: post #27

Doesn't it have to go back to the House anyway? Am I missing something? I thought that bills needed to pass in both the House and Senate before they can be signed into law? Now in the House they'll have an opportunity to reject the bill with McConnell's original amendment, which is obviously dispicable. This all seems like political theater, like Senator Schumer allowed a vote on this today knowing Sanders would be o…

I read it was merely a replacement of something already in, and thus does not need to be returned to the house.

How can they just replace something in the bill passed by the house without the house approving that change? Would that not constitute an amendment? My understanding of the bicameral legislature is that both bodies need to clear the exact language of potential legislation for it to become law. Any change made by either body constitutes an amendment and needs to be approved by the other before the president can sign the bill into law or veto it.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#96

Post by loeg »

repsilat wrote: post #53
dlp211 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt this. It makes no sense to not vote for the amendment irrespective of your vote for the larger bill. In other words, Sanders could vote yes on the amendment and no on the bill.

It could make sense to vote against watering down the bill if you think the watered-down version is more likely to pass. This amendment could be the opposite of a poison pill (a "spoonful of sugar"?)

The bill will pass either way. Now it just passes with worse privacy properties for regular Americans.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#97

Post by [deleted] »

djaque wrote: post #82
djaque wrote: post #66

Just a reminder that if you're upset about this, politics is an active process. I'm going to look up my senator's votes right now and send them an email if they were one of the nay votes.

Whelp... I'm 0/2 for my senators. Here is my letter BTW, feel free to copy it and use it to get in contact with your reps. Look up their votes here [1]. Dear Representative $NAY_VOTER, I'm writing you to express my disappointment in your recent vote on May 13 to reject Wyden amendment no. 1583. This amendment would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing American's web browsing dat…

[deleted]

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#99

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

djaque wrote: post #82
djaque wrote: post #66

Just a reminder that if you're upset about this, politics is an active process. I'm going to look up my senator's votes right now and send them an email if they were one of the nay votes.

Whelp... I'm 0/2 for my senators. Here is my letter BTW, feel free to copy it and use it to get in contact with your reps. Look up their votes here [1]. Dear Representative $NAY_VOTER, I'm writing you to express my disappointment in your recent vote on May 13 to reject Wyden amendment no. 1583. This amendment would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing American's web browsing dat…

2/2

For once, I don't have to be embarrassed about Duckworth.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#100

Post by kolbe »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #12

Wyden is probably one of the few senators, who is consistent on this issue. Everyone else, at best, pays lip service or repeats talking points about terrorism and the need to protect America from the ever present danger.

It's really hard for me to tell on these issues what is real. I feel like they just have a certain number of senators who are allowed to look moral, but the end result always needs to be that surveillance wins. My gut says that Wyden just happens to have drawn the long straw in a sick game to make the Seante look more moral than it is, but if he needed to vote for it to pass for some reason, he would. This loss is kinda like a carnie saying "oh close one, you almost got it" in a game he knows is fixed.
Post reply on HN