4 ms·

EFF has details. Donate. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/12/section-702-needs-reform-and-oversight-not-expansion-congress-should-oppose-hpsci https://www.ef

EFF has details. Donate. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/12/section-702-needs-reform-and-oversight-not-expansion-congress-should-oppose-hpsci https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/12/section-702-needs-refo...

yieldcrv 3y ago
Does anyone know the forums where people create bills for laws like the one discuss and think they’re doing good? I don’t want like paranoia based forums, I want the one where intelligent people are synthesizing laws with the correct lingo, laws that create power for the state and pass it to their favorite senators I would like to see how they think about things I don't really buy the perpetual “us vs them” mentality I’m presented with, and maybe there is a more holistic approach to collaborating with their sentiment if there was more communication
- theonlybutlet 3y ago
  Congressional committees and hearings? Alternatively lobby groups.
  - CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
    Coffee meets keyboard moment.
    - theonlybutlet 3y ago
      Lol
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  > and think they’re doing good? I think they're doing good. These programs are constitutional and there are bad guys in the world. Some things need to be secret. Let's start there- can we both agree that secrets are sometimes necessary?
  - abeyer 3y ago
    Sure, let's start there. And then how exactly do we get to the current debate, which is more "Secrets for me, but not for thee"?
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      There's the rub. "Secrets for thee" would mean giving secrets to the whole world- enemies and all. They do eventually become declassified which seems like a good compromise. Transparency without giving a freebie to the enemy.
      - abeyer 3y ago
        That's not the rub at all. No one is "giving secrets" to anyone. The debate is whether to further allow and expand the power of the government to prevent anyone else from keeping secrets of their own. We started from the premise that secrets are necessary sometimes, right? I fail to see the connection.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    Secrets like "what are the codes to the nuclear weapons" or "what are the identities of our spies in foreign countries", sure. Secrets like "we served a warrant to this entity for this information", no. I don't think such secrets are ever appropriate. The government should not have the authority to stop any entity from disclosing information they didn't agree in advance to keep secret. When you sign up to have top-secret clearance, you're agreeing that you are to keep that information secret, and you wouldn't have obtained the information otherwise; you can always choose not to apply for that clearance and then not get the information. Secret warrants should not exist. The concept is fundamentally flawed and irreparable. If you receive a warrant you should always be entirely within your rights to publish it verbatim. Separate from that: the entire concept of compelling an entity to collect information is also fundamentally flawed and unfixable. Serving a (non-secret) warrant to gather information an entity already has is perfectly reasonable. Compelling an entity to gather information they otherwise would not have gathered is not reasonable.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  > I don't really buy the perpetual “us vs them” mentality I’m presented with, and maybe there is a more holistic approach to collaborating with their sentiment if there was more communication I think it's "people who write them $100,000 checks versus people who don't". There is no true collaboration when one side of the argument is shoveling piles of money in to their lap and then we are expected to encourage them to see our side.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    reiterating: I want to see their side. I've lobbied in a variety of countries and stateside political entities successfully, and in the process I realized everyone thinks their cause is just. My ability to bridge consensus is more novel than the ideologies that have gravitated to the far extremes of their respective parties and will never gain consensus. What we have in common is that we all appreciate the influence that surpasses the popular vote, in places we could never be registered to vote in to begin with. So my causes have been enacted in some places, and people doing the same thing believe the same thing about their causes. Nobody sees themselves as the "shadowy foreign influence" in the other country's political process, but sure, the Michael Moore documentary 10 years too late will present it that way. In this case, I'd like to know what the proponents believe about this particular cause to even do. What are they trying to accomplish beyond "unaccountable secret government court to piss off technologists that have a hobby of paying attention to it"?
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      > secret government court to piss off technologists Pretty sure nobody cares about what "technologists" think about it. Technologists will do what they're told, for pay. "Unaccountable secret government" is an obvious aim in itself, for people who think (or know) that they will be insiders.
    - costco 3y ago
      Here's a talk that may interest you with former Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center Bill Evanina and Special Agent Charles McGonigal (yes, that one). https://youtu.be/aZdJ6aDsB08?t=5712 https://youtu.be/aZdJ6aDsB08?t=5712 They believe these powers are critical for counterintelligence and foreign influence investigations. I think that's not true, but I'm pretty sure they actually believe it.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Does anyone know the forums where people create bills for laws Call your electeds and let them know of policy areas you’re interested in and could comment on legislation about. Or, if you see a bill, call in the edit.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
It sounds like the reform bill, i.e. the Judiciary bill that calls for warrants, does not contain this expansion. It’s the “business as usual” bill that’s troubling. Given that, the headline seems easy to misinterpret.
- jkaplowitz 3y ago
  The headline which quotes the word “reform” is pretty easy to explain: the bill with “reform” in its name is the one with the problematic expansion. The other bill does not use “reform” in its name.
WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Yeah but the EFF hyperbolizes every single issue, is there a less horrifically biased source to learn about the actual contents of the related bills?

yieldcrv 3y ago

Does anyone know the forums where people create bills for laws like the one discuss and think they’re doing good? I don’t want like paranoia based forums, I want the one where intelligent people are synthesizing laws with the correct lingo, laws that create power for the state and pass it to their favorite senators I would like to see how they think about things I don't really buy the perpetual “us vs them” mentality I’m presented with, and maybe there is a more holistic approach to collaborating with their sentiment if there was more communication

theonlybutlet 3y ago
Congressional committees and hearings? Alternatively lobby groups.
- CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
  Coffee meets keyboard moment.
  - theonlybutlet 3y ago
    Lol
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> and think they’re doing good? I think they're doing good. These programs are constitutional and there are bad guys in the world. Some things need to be secret. Let's start there- can we both agree that secrets are sometimes necessary?
- abeyer 3y ago
  Sure, let's start there. And then how exactly do we get to the current debate, which is more "Secrets for me, but not for thee"?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    There's the rub. "Secrets for thee" would mean giving secrets to the whole world- enemies and all. They do eventually become declassified which seems like a good compromise. Transparency without giving a freebie to the enemy.
    - abeyer 3y ago
      That's not the rub at all. No one is "giving secrets" to anyone. The debate is whether to further allow and expand the power of the government to prevent anyone else from keeping secrets of their own. We started from the premise that secrets are necessary sometimes, right? I fail to see the connection.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  Secrets like "what are the codes to the nuclear weapons" or "what are the identities of our spies in foreign countries", sure. Secrets like "we served a warrant to this entity for this information", no. I don't think such secrets are ever appropriate. The government should not have the authority to stop any entity from disclosing information they didn't agree in advance to keep secret. When you sign up to have top-secret clearance, you're agreeing that you are to keep that information secret, and you wouldn't have obtained the information otherwise; you can always choose not to apply for that clearance and then not get the information. Secret warrants should not exist. The concept is fundamentally flawed and irreparable. If you receive a warrant you should always be entirely within your rights to publish it verbatim. Separate from that: the entire concept of compelling an entity to collect information is also fundamentally flawed and unfixable. Serving a (non-secret) warrant to gather information an entity already has is perfectly reasonable. Compelling an entity to gather information they otherwise would not have gathered is not reasonable.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
> I don't really buy the perpetual “us vs them” mentality I’m presented with, and maybe there is a more holistic approach to collaborating with their sentiment if there was more communication I think it's "people who write them $100,000 checks versus people who don't". There is no true collaboration when one side of the argument is shoveling piles of money in to their lap and then we are expected to encourage them to see our side.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  reiterating: I want to see their side. I've lobbied in a variety of countries and stateside political entities successfully, and in the process I realized everyone thinks their cause is just. My ability to bridge consensus is more novel than the ideologies that have gravitated to the far extremes of their respective parties and will never gain consensus. What we have in common is that we all appreciate the influence that surpasses the popular vote, in places we could never be registered to vote in to begin with. So my causes have been enacted in some places, and people doing the same thing believe the same thing about their causes. Nobody sees themselves as the "shadowy foreign influence" in the other country's political process, but sure, the Michael Moore documentary 10 years too late will present it that way. In this case, I'd like to know what the proponents believe about this particular cause to even do. What are they trying to accomplish beyond "unaccountable secret government court to piss off technologists that have a hobby of paying attention to it"?
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    > secret government court to piss off technologists Pretty sure nobody cares about what "technologists" think about it. Technologists will do what they're told, for pay. "Unaccountable secret government" is an obvious aim in itself, for people who think (or know) that they will be insiders.
  - costco 3y ago
    Here's a talk that may interest you with former Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center Bill Evanina and Special Agent Charles McGonigal (yes, that one). https://youtu.be/aZdJ6aDsB08?t=5712 https://youtu.be/aZdJ6aDsB08?t=5712 They believe these powers are critical for counterintelligence and foreign influence investigations. I think that's not true, but I'm pretty sure they actually believe it.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Does anyone know the forums where people create bills for laws Call your electeds and let them know of policy areas you’re interested in and could comment on legislation about. Or, if you see a bill, call in the edit.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

It sounds like the reform bill, i.e. the Judiciary bill that calls for warrants, does not contain this expansion. It’s the “business as usual” bill that’s troubling. Given that, the headline seems easy to misinterpret.

jkaplowitz 3y ago
The headline which quotes the word “reform” is pretty easy to explain: the bill with “reform” in its name is the one with the problematic expansion. The other bill does not use “reform” in its name.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

Yeah but the EFF hyperbolizes every single issue, is there a less horrifically biased source to learn about the actual contents of the related bills?