Senate passes spying bill without search and browsing history protections

Monkey34

Monkey34

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
5,140
"An effort to protect Americans' browsing and search histories from warrantless government surveillance failed by a single vote in the Senate on Wednesday.

The vote was over a section of federal surveillance law that was originally part of the USA Patriot Act in 2001. That provision, known as Section 215, gave the FBI the power to obtain "any tangible thing," including "books, records, papers, documents, and other items," without a warrant. "

Safety in exchange for liberty; the gift that keeps on giving
 
I read that on Ars yesterday. I can't believe how many congressional represenatives have skeletons in their closet but think this would burn them just like us common folk.
 
I totally trust the government and have nothing to hide. Look at how well they have handled the economy and Corona-virus threat. They are already doing a great job at making sure our glorious corporate overlords friends are managing our data responsibly and act in their customers' best interests, not to mention the great work the FCC with regulating the internet and its providers.
I mean obviously the only people that would have a problem with this are terrorists and Star Wars fans <insert current scapegoat community here>.
 
This is a whole lot about nothing. First of all, this has nothing to do with a warrantless search of an average citizen. The only thing warrantless out of this is for foreign intelligence sources. Second, this was already in effect since 2001. If your civil liberties have not been infringed in the past 19 years through some mismanagement of these provisions, the chances of that occurring now are very slim to non-existent. Third, FISA courts will now have a pro-privacy watchdog that at least has input into the process (something you didn't have before).

So essentially you got more protection by adding pro-privacy input into the FISA courts, but got lured here by a click-bait "spying bill" and "search and browsing history protection" as if the government cares how much porn you watch.
 
I won't get into politics but I encourage everyone to read the actual bill instead of tech sites interpretations of it. I am in an industry that this directly involves and it doesn't concern me near as much as people are blindly harking.
 
kirbyrj said:
This is a whole lot about nothing. First of all, this has nothing to do with a warrantless search of an average citizen. The only thing warrantless out of this is for foreign intelligence sources. Second, this was already in effect since 2001. If your civil liberties have not been infringed in the past 19 years through some mismanagement of these provisions, the chances of that occurring now are very slim to non-existent. Third, FISA courts will now have a pro-privacy watchdog that at least has input into the process (something you didn't have before).

So essentially you got more protection by adding pro-privacy input into the FISA courts, but got lured here by a click-bait "spying bill" and "search and browsing history protection" as if the government cares how much porn you watch.
Click to expand...

More words but basically what I was alluding to in my post. I assure you it takes a mountain of paperwork and evidence to enact many of these motions people think are happening all the time.
 
tool_462 said:
More words but basically what I was alluding to in my post. I assure you it takes a mountain of paperwork and evidence to enact many of these motions people think are happening all the time.
Click to expand...
1589556979949.png

does it though?!
 
I don't know the specifics of the bill, but I do know that it would need to pass both in the Senate and in the House and then be signed to become law.

Unless the House previously passed any identical version, this is far from happening yet.
 
tool_462 said:
More words but basically what I was alluding to in my post. I assure you it takes a mountain of paperwork and evidence to enact many of these motions people think are happening all the time.
Click to expand...
Normally yes but now there is nothing stopping say the CIA from creating a massive datacenter and working with ISP's to simply scrape the data of all users, then when they see something suspicious they can drill down on a user for a closer look. The bigger question then becomes how far their SSL decrypt tech has come along, the stuff openly available from PaloAlto and Juniper is pretty cool/scary so I would imagine what they have access to is a pretty large jump ahead of that.
 
Honestly never expect to get privacy from anything. They will keep making stupid laws stripping away more and more. It is only a matter of time before the constitution is abolished and government gets to do w/e it wants. They been slowly chipping away at it for years. They control the media and people are too stupid to see what is really happening.
 
Dudhunter said:
Some moron will say “well that’s fine I have nothing to hide”; another will say “trust the plan”.

hopefully this shit gets challenged in court for violating the constitution.
Click to expand...
Knowing that there are people thinking everyone should live in a glass house turns my stomach.
 
Dudhunter said:
Some moron will say “well that’s fine I have nothing to hide”; another will say “trust the plan”.

hopefully this shit gets challenged in court for violating the constitution.
Click to expand...
The Mad Atheist said:
Knowing that there are people thinking everyone should live in a glass house turns my stomach.
Click to expand...

Except it is literally the definition of a straw man argument. Nobody said that. The one person who actually has first-hand knowledge in this thread said that the original article isn't even accurate.
 
Dudhunter said:
Some moron will say “well that’s fine I have nothing to hide”; another will say “trust the plan”.

hopefully this shit gets challenged in court for violating the constitution.
Click to expand...
Considering that this is a Re-authorization bill for existing legislation, if a challenge hasn't happened by now, probably won't happen. The browsing history amendment was an attempt to modify the existing, but expired, rules. As the Senate version contained an amendment not in the House version, the House now has to approve the Senate version.
 
Monkey34 said:
"An effort to protect Americans' browsing and search histories from warrantless government surveillance failed by a single vote in the Senate on Wednesday.

The vote was over a section of federal surveillance law that was originally part of the USA Patriot Act in 2001. That provision, known as Section 215, gave the FBI the power to obtain "any tangible thing," including "books, records, papers, documents, and other items," without a warrant. "

Safety in exchange for liberty; the gift that keeps on giving
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the Democrat controlled House vote it down though?
 
Imagine a government that deliberately passes laws to ENSURE privacy. They deliberately go to great lengths to avoid spying, to avoid malicious wars, to avoid passing unjust law. A benevolent government that exists to help the people, to ensure their economic and personal success, and roots out corruption before it begins to fester.
 
Death by 1000 cuts, and thus the dark cyberpunk future bleeds the green for those in the know. :borg:

tips-for-people-who-think-they-hate-selling-20-638.jpg
 
Aegir said:
Imagine a government that deliberately passes laws to ENSURE privacy. They deliberately go to great lengths to avoid spying, to avoid malicious wars, to avoid passing unjust law. A benevolent government that exists to help the people, to ensure their economic and personal success, and roots out corruption before it begins to fester.
Click to expand...
There used to be a country like that, formed in 1776.
It was called The United States of America.

That is, before it turned into ancient Rome a few hundred years later, and, well, we know how that went with ancient Rome...
 
kirbyrj said:
Except it is literally the definition of a straw man argument. Nobody said that. The one person who actually has first-hand knowledge in this thread said that the original article isn't even accurate.
Click to expand...
I referring to people in general, not specifically the article. There are that think they should be able to know everything about you.
 
Just imagine how much storage space is literally being devoted to step-sibling porn searches haha. Whole buildings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chibe
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top