4 ms·

I'm surprised this passed, to be honest.

by BlackjackCF 10y ago

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Unanimously. How often does that happen?
- ccvannorman 10y ago
  "Yes, we need to read all emails to keep America safe." whisper whisper from a staff aid "WHAT? You mean Jenkins down at NSA, Sally at FTC, Bob at FBI, any of them can read MY emails any time and I'd never even know it!? We must do something!" Fortunately congresspeople are citizens too. ;-]
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    The defense I kept telling Schneier et al to post, but haven't seen, is how susceptible our dirty Congress is to blackmail. Probably have to be a closed session to get the honesty there. We can present it less like they're scumbags and more like "we know how the world works so let's be real about risk to you and therefore rest of us." I heavily pushed on different blogs extrapolating the Hoover precedent to NSA-level capabilities. I think it's the best route as it's in their self interests. I think getting the business and international elites on board might be helpful as well. Unfortunately, they often push for surveillance or police states since they're good for business at various levels. However, even a minority push might hold back the worst legislation while letting whatever passes contain a loophole big enough for them and maybe some of us. Plus, they have the money to fund key solutions in the stack. So, those are two ideas I've pushed in the various debates.
- lukeschlather 10y ago
  In the 113th Congress, it looks like the House of Representatives had 95 unanimous votes, where unanimous is defined as having zero no votes and at least one yes vote. This is out of 1204 votes, based on a quick little script I whipped up. You can look at the raw data pretty easily thanks to https://www.govtrack.us/developers/data https://www.govtrack.us/developers/data rsync -avz --delete --delete-excluded --exclude **/text-versions/ govtrack.us::govtrackdata/congress/113/votes . for file in votes/*/h*/data.json; do noes=$(jq '(.votes.Nay | length) + (.votes.No | length)' $file;) yeses=$(jq '(.votes.Yea | length) + (.votes.Aye | length)' $file;) if [[ "$yeses" -gt 0 && "$noes" -eq 0 ]] then echo $file : "No: $noes" "Yes: $yeses" fi done | wc -l In the senate, the number is 87. (The code for the senate is basically the same, except you do votes/*/s*/data.json instead of votes/*/h*/data.json )
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Cool. Thanks. It's the definition of unanimous that's a little fishy. I thought it meant everyone voted Yes for it whereas even a 1 to 0 vote could pass as unanimous, right?
    - etjossem 10y ago
      That's why we have a quorum. Half of all seated Senators (51) are required to be present for the Senate to do business. For a House with no vacancies, half means 218 Representatives. So you're right; fishy "unanimous" votes can and do happen. A controversial measure might pass unanimously in a legislative body because all the opposition walked out in protest. This happened about a month ago in the 50-seat North Carolina Senate, which is dominated by Republicans. [1] [1] https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/senate-democrats-walk-out-of-vote-overturning-bathroom-ordinance/ https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/senate-democrat...
      - lukeschlather 10y ago
        It looks like the smallest unanimous vote in the 113/114th congresses was 353. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll631.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll631.xml For the Senate, 83. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1141/vote_114_1_00300.xml http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote11...
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Makes sense. Appreciate the tip.
nandhp 10y ago
I'm mostly surprised that it passed 419-0. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll167.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll167.xml
raddad 10y ago
Everybody in the house must have their own home Email servers.
- deadowl 10y ago
  Home email servers require a warrant. It's third-party email servers, or even third-party hosts, that this is addressing. That is assuming my past understanding is correct. It should be unconstitutional as it stands now, as anything password-protected whatsoever should ideally fall under reasonable expectation of privacy.
akita-ken 10y ago
Given the relative difficulty that privacy bills face in Congress, one wonders what kind of vested interests are at play here. Skeletons in the closet?

I'm surprised this passed, to be honest.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Unanimously. How often does that happen?

ccvannorman 10y ago
"Yes, we need to read all emails to keep America safe." whisper whisper from a staff aid "WHAT? You mean Jenkins down at NSA, Sally at FTC, Bob at FBI, any of them can read MY emails any time and I'd never even know it!? We must do something!" Fortunately congresspeople are citizens too. ;-]
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  The defense I kept telling Schneier et al to post, but haven't seen, is how susceptible our dirty Congress is to blackmail. Probably have to be a closed session to get the honesty there. We can present it less like they're scumbags and more like "we know how the world works so let's be real about risk to you and therefore rest of us." I heavily pushed on different blogs extrapolating the Hoover precedent to NSA-level capabilities. I think it's the best route as it's in their self interests. I think getting the business and international elites on board might be helpful as well. Unfortunately, they often push for surveillance or police states since they're good for business at various levels. However, even a minority push might hold back the worst legislation while letting whatever passes contain a loophole big enough for them and maybe some of us. Plus, they have the money to fund key solutions in the stack. So, those are two ideas I've pushed in the various debates.
lukeschlather 10y ago
In the 113th Congress, it looks like the House of Representatives had 95 unanimous votes, where unanimous is defined as having zero no votes and at least one yes vote. This is out of 1204 votes, based on a quick little script I whipped up. You can look at the raw data pretty easily thanks to https://www.govtrack.us/developers/data https://www.govtrack.us/developers/data rsync -avz --delete --delete-excluded --exclude **/text-versions/ govtrack.us::govtrackdata/congress/113/votes . for file in votes/*/h*/data.json; do noes=$(jq '(.votes.Nay | length) + (.votes.No | length)' $file;) yeses=$(jq '(.votes.Yea | length) + (.votes.Aye | length)' $file;) if [[ "$yeses" -gt 0 && "$noes" -eq 0 ]] then echo $file : "No: $noes" "Yes: $yeses" fi done | wc -l In the senate, the number is 87. (The code for the senate is basically the same, except you do votes/*/s*/data.json instead of votes/*/h*/data.json )
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Cool. Thanks. It's the definition of unanimous that's a little fishy. I thought it meant everyone voted Yes for it whereas even a 1 to 0 vote could pass as unanimous, right?
  - etjossem 10y ago
    That's why we have a quorum. Half of all seated Senators (51) are required to be present for the Senate to do business. For a House with no vacancies, half means 218 Representatives. So you're right; fishy "unanimous" votes can and do happen. A controversial measure might pass unanimously in a legislative body because all the opposition walked out in protest. This happened about a month ago in the 50-seat North Carolina Senate, which is dominated by Republicans. [1] [1] https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/senate-democrats-walk-out-of-vote-overturning-bathroom-ordinance/ https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/senate-democrat...
    - lukeschlather 10y ago
      It looks like the smallest unanimous vote in the 113/114th congresses was 353. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll631.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll631.xml For the Senate, 83. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1141/vote_114_1_00300.xml http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote11...
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Makes sense. Appreciate the tip.

nandhp 10y ago

I'm mostly surprised that it passed 419-0. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll167.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll167.xml

raddad 10y ago

Everybody in the house must have their own home Email servers.

deadowl 10y ago
Home email servers require a warrant. It's third-party email servers, or even third-party hosts, that this is addressing. That is assuming my past understanding is correct. It should be unconstitutional as it stands now, as anything password-protected whatsoever should ideally fall under reasonable expectation of privacy.

akita-ken 10y ago

Given the relative difficulty that privacy bills face in Congress, one wonders what kind of vested interests are at play here. Skeletons in the closet?