4 ms·

The same thing that happens any time the oligarchy wants legislation... they just took the losses and kept trying until one time we weren't paying attention. I

The same thing that happens any time the oligarchy wants legislation... they just took the losses and kept trying until one time we weren't paying attention. I have seen this coming for a while now. Once the oligarchy understood the internet is the last bastion of anarchistic fredom of thought they immediately wanted to take control over it somehow.

mirimir 9y ago
Also embedded in the spending bill[0] is the CLOUD Act:[1] > The CLOUD Act (S. 2383 and H.R. 4943) has two major components. First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules. Second, it empowers the president to unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth, even known human rights abusers. Under such executive agreements, foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States, directly from U.S. companies, without following U.S. privacy rules like the Fourth Amendment, so long as the foreign police are not targeting a U.S. person or a person in the United States. 0) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflected-cloud-act-passes https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflect... 1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fourth-amendment-cloud-act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fo...
- jakeogh 9y ago
  "unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth" good chance the SC strikes that down if it gets there. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/spotlight-fourth-amendment/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/spotlight-fourth-am...
  - votepaunchy 9y ago
    You do realize that non-U.S. persons not in the U.S. are not covered by the U.S. Constitution?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      Correct. That's up to that country, if they cant handle outside influence that's bad, and they and only they can fix it. We have our own trouble with it here... I am doing everything I can to stop us from meddling in other countries, and you wont see us going to war any time soon (despite the BS media owned by the war party). What else do you want? This law violates my 4th Amendment, and as far as that goes, it's highly likely that it gets struck down given the chance, our latest SC appointment makes that even more likely. Maybe it would have been more clear if I had quoted the "foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States" part.
      - Intermernet 9y ago
        >despite the BS media owned by the war party Sorry, I'm from Australia and sometimes find tracking US internal nomenclature confusing. Which party is "the war party"? Both major parties seem to have been happy to support ongoing military action over the last few decades so maybe I'm missing something. Once again, I'm legitimately asking for clarification in order to put your comment in context. No judgement!
        jakeogh 9y ago
        No, you have it correct. Both major parties pretend to fight when they have the same goal (which is basically to finish the NWO project, it's a huge problem having powerful individuals, very inconvenient for the rest of the global power structures). Outliers not in the club are rare, recent examples are Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and (seriously f-ing major huge USA-saving-I'm-not-even-remotely-kidding) Donald J. Trump. TPP/ISIS/Iran/NK these are all TLA perma-state order-out-of-chaos creations and tools. We haven't even got to the good stuff yet. A third to half of the US has no idea we just went through a soft anti-coo all the way from 2001. Ted Cruz gets an honorable mention, Devin Nunez, Chavez, Gowdy, Grassley along with a bunch of house members, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash (sometimes... he's still learning the ropes). Worst of the worst are the crew surrounding my home state's senators of Arizona. Which is weird, people here know what's up. The 18th amendment is not a good thing. I'm leaving out a bunch if the good dems because I don't track them as closely, but that's the basics. Feinstien gets major flack (imho rightly) from the right, but she is an honest outlier too. DC is (really) a cult, but not everyone is in it. Sorry for linking to Newt, but he explains this correctly: https://youtu.be/kkzuvte3758 https://youtu.be/kkzuvte3758 If you get people a bit out of their guard they are honest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4DuMcrVpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4DuMcrVpE (I was looking for just the CM full clip, but this will do, YT is quite the memory hole, didnt check that chan, but it's _extremely_ common to poison the well by mixing something like that with flat earth or whatever turns people off. CM knows he's been played, he knows about #7 and will bring it up, he wants out.) They have an old religion, and love to put it out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5gklIKcDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5gklIKcDg Like any gangs, these gangs need to throw their signs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ (it's not monolithic, but that one is very interesting) I'm not doing myself any favors posting this. It's so easy to set off the "CT" bells and people just tune out. Watch the vid link in my profile and read up on the disinformation page in the mediawiki link if you think it's interesting.
- grey-area 9y ago
  First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules. Spy agencies have already done this for decades with impunity and provided the data to law enforcement agencies, so this is probably just trying to provide them with legal cover.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mirimir 9y ago

Also embedded in the spending bill[0] is the CLOUD Act:[1] > The CLOUD Act (S. 2383 and H.R. 4943) has two major components. First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules. Second, it empowers the president to unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth, even known human rights abusers. Under such executive agreements, foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States, directly from U.S. companies, without following U.S. privacy rules like the Fourth Amendment, so long as the foreign police are not targeting a U.S. person or a person in the United States. 0) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflected-cloud-act-passes https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflect... 1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fourth-amendment-cloud-act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fo...

jakeogh 9y ago
"unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth" good chance the SC strikes that down if it gets there. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/spotlight-fourth-amendment/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/spotlight-fourth-am...
- votepaunchy 9y ago
  You do realize that non-U.S. persons not in the U.S. are not covered by the U.S. Constitution?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    Correct. That's up to that country, if they cant handle outside influence that's bad, and they and only they can fix it. We have our own trouble with it here... I am doing everything I can to stop us from meddling in other countries, and you wont see us going to war any time soon (despite the BS media owned by the war party). What else do you want? This law violates my 4th Amendment, and as far as that goes, it's highly likely that it gets struck down given the chance, our latest SC appointment makes that even more likely. Maybe it would have been more clear if I had quoted the "foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States" part.
    - Intermernet 9y ago
      >despite the BS media owned by the war party Sorry, I'm from Australia and sometimes find tracking US internal nomenclature confusing. Which party is "the war party"? Both major parties seem to have been happy to support ongoing military action over the last few decades so maybe I'm missing something. Once again, I'm legitimately asking for clarification in order to put your comment in context. No judgement!
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        No, you have it correct. Both major parties pretend to fight when they have the same goal (which is basically to finish the NWO project, it's a huge problem having powerful individuals, very inconvenient for the rest of the global power structures). Outliers not in the club are rare, recent examples are Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and (seriously f-ing major huge USA-saving-I'm-not-even-remotely-kidding) Donald J. Trump. TPP/ISIS/Iran/NK these are all TLA perma-state order-out-of-chaos creations and tools. We haven't even got to the good stuff yet. A third to half of the US has no idea we just went through a soft anti-coo all the way from 2001. Ted Cruz gets an honorable mention, Devin Nunez, Chavez, Gowdy, Grassley along with a bunch of house members, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash (sometimes... he's still learning the ropes). Worst of the worst are the crew surrounding my home state's senators of Arizona. Which is weird, people here know what's up. The 18th amendment is not a good thing. I'm leaving out a bunch if the good dems because I don't track them as closely, but that's the basics. Feinstien gets major flack (imho rightly) from the right, but she is an honest outlier too. DC is (really) a cult, but not everyone is in it. Sorry for linking to Newt, but he explains this correctly: https://youtu.be/kkzuvte3758 https://youtu.be/kkzuvte3758 If you get people a bit out of their guard they are honest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4DuMcrVpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4DuMcrVpE (I was looking for just the CM full clip, but this will do, YT is quite the memory hole, didnt check that chan, but it's _extremely_ common to poison the well by mixing something like that with flat earth or whatever turns people off. CM knows he's been played, he knows about #7 and will bring it up, he wants out.) They have an old religion, and love to put it out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5gklIKcDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5gklIKcDg Like any gangs, these gangs need to throw their signs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ (it's not monolithic, but that one is very interesting) I'm not doing myself any favors posting this. It's so easy to set off the "CT" bells and people just tune out. Watch the vid link in my profile and read up on the disinformation page in the mediawiki link if you think it's interesting.
grey-area 9y ago
First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules. Spy agencies have already done this for decades with impunity and provided the data to law enforcement agencies, so this is probably just trying to provide them with legal cover.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]