37 ms·

> We've already seen well known EFF activists rated untrue for their arguments against warrantless surveillance Got a link about that?

• barbacoa 6y ago
  From my understanding the story is: * Patriot act is up for renewal * Amendment proposed to not allow section 215 to be used to search internet history W/O warrant. * Patriot act reauthorized W/O internet history protection amendment. * PF rules "[Congress] voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant." is false because of semantic word games. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/21/facebook-posts/did-us-senators-vote-reveal-internet-browser-histo/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/21/facebook-p...
  • raxxorrax 6y ago
    Technically, that would be a great case to strengthen anonymity.
  • dependenttypes 6y ago
    Politifact seems extremely dishonest in this. Even with these semantic word games "[Congress] voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant." is still true. Thank you a lot. Do you happen to have a source for "I've seen arguments about Confederate generals rated as false because of modern news events - in ways that disagree with well tenured academic historians" as well maybe?