5 ms·

Proposed amendment to expand Patriot Act with warrantless access to web activity

95 points by save_ferris 6y ago

geggam 6y ago
Wish there was an insightful comment to make here about hope for the future but I just cant think of one
- coronadisaster 6y ago
  looks like it will have to get bad for most people before it starts improving...
- krapp 6y ago
  Just make a reference to 1984 or Brave New World, or copy-paste that Ben Franklin quote about trading liberty for security, that's what's usually done.
xenospn 6y ago
Seems like it didn't pass?
- save_ferris 6y ago
  The amendment to require a warrant for browser data retrieval didn't pass. The bill enabling warrantless browser data seizure is still very much alive.
- schimmy_changa 6y ago
  It's really hard to tell (this is very confusing: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/senate-vote-fisa-authorities/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/senate-vote-fisa-aut...) but it looks like the amendment by a pro-privacy senator (Wyden, D-OR) failed, not the overall authorization of the Patriot Act, so the concern on behalf of privacy is still valid
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
    Thanks, that is a good succint summary of what has happened. The USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act is the bill that would renew the Patriot Act and (anti-privacy) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell added an amendment that would allow warrantless access to internet history. (pro-privacy) Senator Wyden tried to add another amendment requiring a warrant but that was defeated a few hours ago by 1 vote.
JoshTriplett 6y ago
The Senate is attempting to pass this. What are the chances that it'll pass the House? This seems unlikely to be successfully blocked in the Senate (though it's still worth trying; different arguments might work with different senators, talk to yours). But it would help to rapidly talk to representatives to ensure that they vote "no" on the overall act. Of course, the whole thing should be a "no" with or without this amendment; the Patriot Act should just die unrenewed. But if you can't convince your representative to vote no no matter what, try to convince them to vote no specifically if this amendment or anything like it is in the bill.
- badRNG 6y ago
  > the Patriot Act should just die unrenewed. I'm confused as to why it doesn't. It seems like there is largely bipartisan opposition to it among the public, why is it still receiving support from both parties in congress?
  - geggam 6y ago
    So some of us think the govt is no longer serving the public. That would play into this
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    This seems like as good a time as any to ask your congressperson if they're voting no, and if not, why not. (And report the answers so others can see them.)
erentz 6y ago
So 10 Democrats joined with the GOP to vote against the amendment from Wyden & Daines that would have prohibited the FBI warrantless surveillance of web browser history: Carper, Casey, Feinstein, Hassan, Jones, Kaine, Manchin, Shaheen, Warner and Whitehorse.
dang 6y ago
Proposed bills rarely go anywhere, so we mostly treat them as off topic on HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20bills&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). Is there something about this case that warrants special treatment? The article seems to be from an advocacy source, which is fine, but means it has an incentive to make this sound more likely than it is. The title is an example—"Congress to" is much stronger than "amendment introduced". (Edit: submitted title was "Congress to expand Patriot Act access to browsing/search history without warrant". I've changed it.) Edit: after reading the article, I can see that this is more than an ordinary bill proposal. But I still can't tell if it clears the bar to be on HN's front page. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172319 below. Edit: after all this, another article ended up taking the story to the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172870. That was probably the best outcome.
- jshaqaw 6y ago
  It’s your club but that seems like a strange policy. Being aware of proposed legislation is the first step for citizens either supporting or opposing it. It’s not helpful for deliberative democracy to only see actions after the fact once embedded in law.
  - dang 6y ago
    That is all true, but it's a different question than what should appear on HN's front page, given that front page space is the scarcest resource this community has (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20scarce&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). I'm not saying that no story like this should appear—on the contrary. I'm saying that we should keep our powder dry for the ones that most belong on the front page, and for that to work, they need not to be routine. The default forces of the internet routinely push the most sensational stories to the top, and that's not HN's purpose, so we need to make distinctions. That doesn't mean there are no exceptions, it means that exceptions need to be cases of unusual significance. Hence my question above: is there something of unusual significance in this particular development, or is this more an example of routine political wrangling? I honestly can't tell; that's why I asked. Edit: I've read the article as well as https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitch-mcconnell-moves-to-expand-bill-barrs-surveillance-powers https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitch-mcconnell-moves-to-expan... which it points to, and I still can't tell. It's pretty unusual for a story like this to sit in the grey zone instead of teetering to one side or the other, so I hope that's not a trend. Edit 2: I've taken out a lot of general language about HN moderation that I originally included in this comment, because after reading the articles I no longer think that this is a general-moderation case. It's a weird outlier that has scrambled my pattern-matching.
james-mcelwain 6y ago
The legislation to block this was defeated by a single vote -- notably, Bernie Sanders was absent and could have voted to defeat this.
- GoodJokes 6y ago
  VP breaks a tie.
  - james-mcelwain 6y ago
    Not a tie, 60 votes.
ahelwer 6y ago
One of the more insightful passages in the unabomber manifesto (worth reading, especially for technologists) details how technology-driven encroachments on our freedom are inevitable because to stop this people must be continually motivated to avoid a bad thing happening to them, which will never be as powerful as how others are motivated to achieve a good thing happening to them. Privacy advocacy at this point is nearly 100% defensive; it really is exhausting to keep up with the various was in which it is being eroded, let alone participate in actually stopping this erosion from taking place.
- k1t 6y ago
  "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." – John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election for Lord Mayor of Dublin, 1790. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Philpot_Curran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Philpot_Curran

95 points by save_ferris 6y ago

geggam 6y ago

Wish there was an insightful comment to make here about hope for the future but I just cant think of one

coronadisaster 6y ago
looks like it will have to get bad for most people before it starts improving...
krapp 6y ago
Just make a reference to 1984 or Brave New World, or copy-paste that Ben Franklin quote about trading liberty for security, that's what's usually done.

xenospn 6y ago

Seems like it didn't pass?

save_ferris 6y ago
The amendment to require a warrant for browser data retrieval didn't pass. The bill enabling warrantless browser data seizure is still very much alive.
schimmy_changa 6y ago
It's really hard to tell (this is very confusing: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/senate-vote-fisa-authorities/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/senate-vote-fisa-aut...) but it looks like the amendment by a pro-privacy senator (Wyden, D-OR) failed, not the overall authorization of the Patriot Act, so the concern on behalf of privacy is still valid
- bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
  Thanks, that is a good succint summary of what has happened. The USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act is the bill that would renew the Patriot Act and (anti-privacy) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell added an amendment that would allow warrantless access to internet history. (pro-privacy) Senator Wyden tried to add another amendment requiring a warrant but that was defeated a few hours ago by 1 vote.

JoshTriplett 6y ago

The Senate is attempting to pass this. What are the chances that it'll pass the House? This seems unlikely to be successfully blocked in the Senate (though it's still worth trying; different arguments might work with different senators, talk to yours). But it would help to rapidly talk to representatives to ensure that they vote "no" on the overall act. Of course, the whole thing should be a "no" with or without this amendment; the Patriot Act should just die unrenewed. But if you can't convince your representative to vote no no matter what, try to convince them to vote no specifically if this amendment or anything like it is in the bill.

badRNG 6y ago
> the Patriot Act should just die unrenewed. I'm confused as to why it doesn't. It seems like there is largely bipartisan opposition to it among the public, why is it still receiving support from both parties in congress?
- geggam 6y ago
  So some of us think the govt is no longer serving the public. That would play into this
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  This seems like as good a time as any to ask your congressperson if they're voting no, and if not, why not. (And report the answers so others can see them.)

erentz 6y ago

So 10 Democrats joined with the GOP to vote against the amendment from Wyden & Daines that would have prohibited the FBI warrantless surveillance of web browser history: Carper, Casey, Feinstein, Hassan, Jones, Kaine, Manchin, Shaheen, Warner and Whitehorse.

dang 6y ago

Proposed bills rarely go anywhere, so we mostly treat them as off topic on HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20bills&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). Is there something about this case that warrants special treatment? The article seems to be from an advocacy source, which is fine, but means it has an incentive to make this sound more likely than it is. The title is an example—"Congress to" is much stronger than "amendment introduced". (Edit: submitted title was "Congress to expand Patriot Act access to browsing/search history without warrant". I've changed it.) Edit: after reading the article, I can see that this is more than an ordinary bill proposal. But I still can't tell if it clears the bar to be on HN's front page. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172319 below. Edit: after all this, another article ended up taking the story to the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172870. That was probably the best outcome.

jshaqaw 6y ago
It’s your club but that seems like a strange policy. Being aware of proposed legislation is the first step for citizens either supporting or opposing it. It’s not helpful for deliberative democracy to only see actions after the fact once embedded in law.
- dang 6y ago
  That is all true, but it's a different question than what should appear on HN's front page, given that front page space is the scarcest resource this community has (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20scarce&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). I'm not saying that no story like this should appear—on the contrary. I'm saying that we should keep our powder dry for the ones that most belong on the front page, and for that to work, they need not to be routine. The default forces of the internet routinely push the most sensational stories to the top, and that's not HN's purpose, so we need to make distinctions. That doesn't mean there are no exceptions, it means that exceptions need to be cases of unusual significance. Hence my question above: is there something of unusual significance in this particular development, or is this more an example of routine political wrangling? I honestly can't tell; that's why I asked. Edit: I've read the article as well as https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitch-mcconnell-moves-to-expand-bill-barrs-surveillance-powers https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitch-mcconnell-moves-to-expan... which it points to, and I still can't tell. It's pretty unusual for a story like this to sit in the grey zone instead of teetering to one side or the other, so I hope that's not a trend. Edit 2: I've taken out a lot of general language about HN moderation that I originally included in this comment, because after reading the articles I no longer think that this is a general-moderation case. It's a weird outlier that has scrambled my pattern-matching.

james-mcelwain 6y ago

The legislation to block this was defeated by a single vote -- notably, Bernie Sanders was absent and could have voted to defeat this.

GoodJokes 6y ago
VP breaks a tie.
- james-mcelwain 6y ago
  Not a tie, 60 votes.

ahelwer 6y ago

One of the more insightful passages in the unabomber manifesto (worth reading, especially for technologists) details how technology-driven encroachments on our freedom are inevitable because to stop this people must be continually motivated to avoid a bad thing happening to them, which will never be as powerful as how others are motivated to achieve a good thing happening to them. Privacy advocacy at this point is nearly 100% defensive; it really is exhausting to keep up with the various was in which it is being eroded, let alone participate in actually stopping this erosion from taking place.

k1t 6y ago
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." – John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election for Lord Mayor of Dublin, 1790. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Philpot_Curran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Philpot_Curran