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

Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 243 posts

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#91

Post by chiefalchemist »

Onawa wrote: post #87
karaterobot wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People generally vote for the incumbent if they happen to claim the same party affiliation. They complain for 4-6 years, then when it comes to what box they tick on the ballot, all of that is out the window. The lure of an incumbent is that they might have acquired enough markers and enough seats on various committees to help the state, when it often seems the reality is that they've probably just acquired more lobby…

The joys of the "first past the post" election system. Take your choice of a shit sandwich, or a shit sandwich with pickles. Heaven forbid we actually update our voting system to break up the inevitable 2-party outcome.

Heaven might not forbid, but the two ruling parties certainly do. Breaking out of the status quo would crush their cartel, end their monopoly. They don't want to do that. The cycle continues.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#92

Post by chiefalchemist »

verdverm wrote: post #73
geuis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I obviously can't guess your age, but I'm gonna wager you weren't around much prior to 9/11. The world was getting on quite well without massive surveillance creep, and none of the stuff FISA has done in the last 23 years would have stopped it. The authorities already had all the info they needed back then and just didn't act on it.

I watched 9/11 live from my dorm Maybe don't jump to biases so fast, people within all age groups have different opinions about the same topics. HN is very opinionated on surveillance, as the comments on this story reinforce

What do you mean by opinionated on surveillance? When did the Constitution become an opinion?

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#93

Post by Barracoon »

calibas wrote: post #24

So if I communicate with a non-US citizen, I effectively forfeit my right to privacy? Am I understand this correctly?

Technically, it’s if you communicate to a target of a foreign intelligence investigation AND they deem you suspect enough to request FISA approval to access your side of the communication.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#94

Post by fifteen1506 »

Barracoon wrote: post #93
calibas wrote: post #24

So if I communicate with a non-US citizen, I effectively forfeit my right to privacy? Am I understand this correctly?

Technically, it’s if you communicate to a target of a foreign intelligence investigation AND they deem you suspect enough to request FISA approval to access your side of the communication.

network American (tm)

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#95

Post by araes »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #66
hypothesis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer restrictions. What restrictions are you talking about? Constitutional warrant requirement was sidestepped using this law and you are still cheering here.

Well, before FISA, constitutional warrant requirements were not sidestepped , they were simply ignored . So now we're acknowledging that the constitutional requirements are still there, but now we use this weird dodge to get around it. So is that better or worse?

Unfortunately, that appears to be America these days. Do something illegal, and then write a law to legalize the illegal behavior.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#96

Post by soraminazuki »

nyokodo wrote: post #61
hammock wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that’s interesting. Really makes you think about all these crackpots talking about a uniparty, deep state vs the people, etc

> crackpots talking about a uniparty, deep state vs the people, etc It’s not controversial to suggest that the interests of the political class, the special interests that fund their campaigns, and Washington bureaucrats differ from the interests of the public at large. You don’t need to evoke deep state conspiracies to explain nefarious coordination because when career and monetary incentives align then bills like t…

Yep, this trend of dismissing undemocratic power structures as conspiracy theories is deeply troubling. Important issues such as surveillance, censorship, and the military-industrial complex have a long history and are extensively documented. Yet it's hard to bring these issues up today without being labeled a far right conspiracist.

It wasn't always like this. Many have agreed these were legitimate issues during the Iraq war. Where have all those people gone today?

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#97

Post by bennyhill »

hellcow wrote: post #35
njarboe wrote: post #12

Here is a link to how the senators voted[1]. [1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1... Unfortunately both my senators voted for it. I did call their offices Thursday to no avail.

I'm really disappointed that even in CA (which is pushing for better privacy rights with CCPA), one of our senators voted for this.

I assume any congress person who voted for surveillance has a horrible kink and received photos of it shortly before the vote.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#98

Post by AnimalMuppet »

hypothesis wrote: post #81
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, before FISA, constitutional warrant requirements were not sidestepped , they were simply ignored . So now we're acknowledging that the constitutional requirements are still there, but now we use this weird dodge to get around it. So is that better or worse?

Are you really asking if being unconstitutional is worse than being codified and legal? I’m not the one here cheering for demise of constitutional republic…

Neither am I cheering for it. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am seriously asking whether being flat-out unconstitutional is worse than building a (legislated and approved) backdoor around the constitution, yes.

I mean, better than both would be to just follow the constitution, but that wasn't the question.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#99

Post by twoodfin »

soraminazuki wrote: post #74
twoodfin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re hoping the Supreme Court, and in particular this Supreme Court, is going to agree that the Constitution requires the executive branch get a warrant before spying on cross-border communication with a non-citizen, you’re going to be disappointed. FISA is Congress exercising the only authority it has here, which is oversight & regulation. You could argue FISA should be stricter, but it can’t extend the Constit…

It's baffling to many people how FISA is even a thing. To a layperson, the Fourth Amendment leaves no room for a rubber stamp court authorizing mass surveillance. And no one except politicians and bureaucrats are buying the argument that this is somehow targeted surveillance. Also, free nations should have higher standards than "Not a citizen? Too bad, anything goes."

This is not complicated: If you run a telegraph wire between El Paso and Juárez, the executive has the Constitutional authority to tap it to intercept communication to or from a non-citizen not in the United States, warrant-free.

Congress can regulate the process that must be followed, the documentation that must be made, even require judicial review at the program level to ensure it doesn’t also record traffic that is Constitutionally protected. That’s what FISA is.

But it can’t ban that tapping, nor can it require the executive to get a warrant for a particular otherwise Constitutional intercept from an Article 3 court.

Which part of this do you think is incorrect?

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#100

Post by reaperman »

verdverm wrote: post #41
hellcow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really disappointed that even in CA (which is pushing for better privacy rights with CCPA), one of our senators voted for this.

Are you aware the alternative is less oversight? FISA protects Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

We also had drug trafficking when the US constitution was originally written[0], and the founders of the US still gave us a constitutional right to warrants for searches relating to it. I don't understand why sealed warrants aren't "good enough" for this purpose, perhaps you could open my mind a bit. Why do we need "warrantless" surveillance for drug trafficking now? Specifically, what's wrong with getting a sealed (secret for a period of time) warrant for surveillance from a normal court?

> In 1800, the British Levant Company purchases nearly half of all of the opium coming out of Smyrna, Turkey strictly for importation to Europe and the United States.

0: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/hi...

Post reply on HN