12 ms·
Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surve
by kitotik 6y ago
Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling.
Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surveillance on American citizens, which of course is not expected to pass.
McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.
- mc32 6y agoWait, so it could be used to surveil state candidates Willy nilly? No warrant required?
- kitotik 6y agoAs it is right now, it would allow access to the internet search and browser history of anyone in the world, without probable cause or a warrant. But to be clear, this is just a reduction in friction of the previous process which was to just call a judge of a secret FISA court which no one is really allowed to know the details of. So this is likely just a move to reduce some red tape, and increase data ingress.
- docbrown 6y ago> the previous process which was to just call a judge of a secret FISA court which no one is really allowed to know the details of. This is simplifying the process to imply it’s nothing more than just a phone call away. I do not think any court works like that. They still have to argue their case before a judge of the court which also allows third parties to submit material in the case. Simply saying “no one” is suppose to know about these courts is portraying this process as something unconstitutional and nothing more than a secret society of government friends. If by no one you actually mean the public, then you have a point. There’s national security concerns around these type of things that you’re ignorantly ignoring. You act as if this court has no existed for over 40 years and under multiple administrations from both side of the aisles.
- kitotik 6y agoI think it’s fairly well understood that it’s more or less a rubber stamp process[0] I’d wager a phone call or email is likely all that was needed in many cases. By “no one” I mean some sort of counter-balancing entity. I’m not sure why you think I’m acting like this didn’t exist under multiple administrations. I’m aware of that, and not OK with any of it. I was not OK with original passing of the patriot act, or the continued renewal by both parties. Look elsewhere for partisanship, I’m an equal opportunity dissenter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
- docbrown 6y agoThird parties being able to submit amicus curiaes seem like a counter-balancing entity—dependent on which way they argue.
- docbrown 6y agoThe Lee-Leahy amendment passed the Senate. Not sure how someone can say there is no counter-balancing entity with regard to FISA courts. From Senator Mike Lee's webpage[0]: The Lee-Leahy amendment will strengthen third-party oversight of the FISA process. Specifically, it requires FISA court judges to appoint an amicus curae (a neutral third-party observer) in any case involving a “sensitive investigative matter” so long as the FISA court does not determine it to be inappropriate. The amendment will also empower the amicus to raise any issue with the court at any time and give both the amicus and the FISA court access to all documents and information related to the surveillance application. 0: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/5/senate-passes-lee-leahy-fisa-amendment https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/5/senate-pa...
- elliekelly 6y agoIt is just a phone call away. Sometimes not even a phone call. In some cases the AG can authorize surveillance and merely notify a judge and file the warrant application later (within 10 days IIRC). Even calling it a rubber stamp is an exceedingly generous definition of probable cause.
- rcurry 6y agoThe secret court has reviewed your criticisms, in secret, and finds them to be completely unwarranted.
- kolanos 6y agoWould have been more accurate to say: The secret court has reviewed your criticisms, in secret, and finds them to be [redacted]. Govern yourself accordingly.
- Spooky23 6y agoThis is a part of the Patriot Act and has been around for a long time. The vote was to add the warrant requirement.
- ashtonkem 6y agoWould this mean that applying for a federal election is a free pass out of warrant less surveillance?
- bathtub365 6y agoIf you also have the resources to go to court to defend your totally legitimate bid, sure
- fiblye 6y agoIt only takes one guy going to court and winning to affirm the rights for everyone. Or one guy going to court and losing to screw everyone.
- throwlaplace 6y agobrilliant! talk about civil disobedience if like hundreds of thousands applied
- Alex3917 6y agoAnd do you just need to spend ten minutes making a static webpage saying that you're running for federal office as a write-in candidate, or do you actually need the signatures to get on the ballot?
- toofy 6y ago> McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass. So privacy for those in positions of power but not for us plebes.
- np_tedious 6y agoDo they have to be viable candidates? I don't mind being in a permanent state of casual campaigning
- giancarlostoro 6y agoWe can even make a political party out of it where everyone in the party is a candidate.
- analognoise 6y agoThis has a very Slack vibe to it that I can dig.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- analognoise 6y agoNo love for the Church of the SubGenious?
- giancarlostoro 6y agoI gave you an upvote in the previous comment because I knew what you were talking about mainly due to Slackware's reference to Church of SubGenious. I don't think many know what that is though. For those curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago> the lack of media coverage on this is appalling What media do you think should cover this? FOX News? CNN? MSNBC? Do you think Rachel Maddow should report on this? Who is going to report on this kind of stuff?
- taurath 6y agoIts in the interest of every single person in america that has ever googled something they would prefer to not talk about. It should be on the 5PM, 7PM and 11PM local news, and every cable org.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ta17711771 6y agoWhat companies are those channels owned by?
- rhizome 6y agoYes, yes, yes, yes, everybody. Right now on the NYT side there's a story about renewable resources being used more than coal. Great news, but is it more important than the government snarfing your browser history? A California congressional election? We have college students considering gap years, LA Times has a spurious Wuhan-interest story and a whole 1/3 sidebar dedicated to the death count. There are plenty of stories being written, but not about this. Pretty much at all. That is the problem, and I don't know how assigning blame certain outlets would change that. We don't know if pitches are getting rejected, or the money is in other topics, or anything, but the simple fact is that it's not happening and it's something that affects everybody in the US (and beyond, I'm sure). Looks like you're getting the usual HN anti-intellectual downvotes and my upvote wasn't enough to drag you out of the gray.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Beltiras 6y ago
- ueu33hyrdd 6y agoI don't get the hostility towards requiring a warrant to spy on election candidates. Even if the goal is similar protections for everybody, it's obvious that measures designed to prevent parties from abusing the surveillance apparatus for political ends is a good thing. It's difficult to imagine a better tool for ensuring one side gets muck raked harder than the other.
- javajosh 6y agoIt violates the core principle of equal justice. What if we only required search or arrest warrants for those with more than $10M in assets? Your comment would still apply, and would be more obviously unjust.
- ueu33hyrdd 6y agoWhether it harmonizes perfectly with the spirit of equal justice or not is irrelevant to whether or not it still represents an improvement over the status quo. Your hypothetical is similarly asanine and works mainly as a straw man because, as far as the integrity of the democratic process, there's a clear difference between shielding individuals competing in a public election and random rich people on the street. You're literally arguing against something that would improve the integrity of the system.
- stallmanite 6y agoIs formalizing a two-tier surveillance regime an improvement over the status quo?
- danShumway 6y agoIf you have a broken system, and you allow people in power to fix it in targeted ways that only affect them, then it will never get fixed for ordinary people. Your point might hold true if the people being exempted from surveillance weren't also the people deciding who can be exempted from surveillance. But since they are, it is counterproductive to the privacy cause to allow Congress to give itself these kinds of special rules. Force everyone in society to play by the same rules, and everyone in society will get the benefits. Allow Congress to get into the habit of exempting themselves from social systems or problems, and those problems will continue to exist. In other words, when setting up incentives you have to think pragmatically about the entire system in the long term; you can't always just focus on short-term goals to the exclusion of everything else. Local optimums[0] aren't just a problem in AI, they're also a problem in real life. Because of the long term consequences, we're not interested in forming privacy castes in scenarios where doing so will make it harder for us to improve the system in the future. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_optimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_optimum
- Spooky23 6y agoAnd where is Bernie Sanders? It passed by one vote. He missed it.
- WilliamEdward 6y agoIt's a pandemic, and as far as i remember they didn't finalise a rule to allow senators to vote remotely[1]. I don't know if this is why Bernie missed it, but 3 other senators besides him missed it too. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2020/05/12/congress-dawdles-on-remote-voting/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2020/05/12/congress-...
- Spooky23 6y agoThat's very sad. One of the other absent Senators is in quarantine. The other 97 Senators seemed to have found a way to get there.
- andromeduck 6y agoWhat exemplary leadership.
- dvtrn 6y agoOnce again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling. I often encourage (and practice myself) looking for a tip email address to your favorite outlets and sending them...well a tip when there’s a story going on they haven’t yet reported, but one feels especially is need of wider dissemination. Feels almost civic. Strongly encouraging it here, too :)
- ezoe 6y ago"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -- George Orwell.
- PlasticTank 6y agoFor two things to be equal is surely an impossibility, they would be one.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 6y agoWow, an Animal Farm quote on Hacker News. I've seen it all.
- hanklazard 6y agoTo your point, I just visited the NYTimes.com, and no mention of this very important story on the front page. Clicked on "Politics" and "U.S.", and I still cannot find a single mention of this story. A complete failure.
- bulldog13 6y agoIt's almost like most news is .... fake.