4 ms·

US House rejects FISA Section 702 extension, warrantless surveillance expires

93 points by ck2 4mo ago

ck2 4mo ago
I'm sure this administration will totally obey that without any enforcement or penalties and pardons awaiting oh wait, it could still be renewed/recreated > Democrats have refused to back an extension of Section 702 unless Trump reverses his decision to name Pulte as acting DNI I guess it's their only card to play but still, how about no warrantless anything considering there's a Constitution and all that
- iAMkenough 4mo ago
  Who enforces the Constitution? SCOTUS is capable of reinterpreting any Constitutional right you have and create carve outs for “national security” boogeymen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop
  - Analemma_ 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - galleywest200 4mo ago
    SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism.
    - iAMkenough 4mo ago
      That almost answers the question, but not quite.
- toomuchtodo 4mo ago
  This administration has an expiration date.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    yeah, it's January 2029. That's how the election timetable works. Assuming there's an election.
sitkack 4mo ago
Surveillance won't stop and the warrants won't start. Now what?
- rglover 4mo ago
  An opportunistic politician would be wise to draft a bill around surveillance transparency and go to all of the people voting against Section 702 here for support (solid arm twist that backs them into a PR corner).
rdudek 4mo ago
I have to admire the double-dipping business model of private companies getting paid by local governments to setup surveillance cameras and harvest data. Then the same goverment will pay to get warrantless access to that same data.
- ck2 4mo ago
  is it just double-dipping the spending (this might be your point) or it is actually doing an end-run around laws against governments doing the surveillance themselves, instead they get private companies to do it and then it's perfectly legal to buy the data just like government buys cellphone tracking data and mortgage data from private brokers when there are laws blocking them doing it directly
  - Henchman21 4mo ago
    There’s a word for government & business collaboration of this type.
    - inigyou 4mo ago
      it's called "government contracting", but you were thinking of "fascism", weren't you? Fascism does mix state and corporate power, but that's not a definitive part of it. Fascism mixes all powers because the nature of fascism is to only tolerate one power, which is itself. This doesn't mean that every time the government and corporations work together, it's fascism.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
0xbadcafebee 4mo ago
https://archive.is/p0sBN https://archive.is/p0sBN
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
inigyou 4mo ago
My chosen interpretation is that they've let it expire because they've found enough ways to spy on us that they don't need it. Ranging from getting everything they need from advertising companies and Flock, to just ignoring the law and doing it anyway because they know it won't be enforced.
- nacozarina 4mo ago
  Correct, the authorization was only needed for the govt to spy on you directly. Private business has no such restrictions, the govt can now buy any info from Palantir, Google, Lexis, ad infinitum
  - diogenes_atx 4mo ago
    According to an academic study, US law enforcement agencies at every level - federal, state and local - no longer need warrants in order to get access to most data on American citizens. It is easier for law enforcement to purchase data from private firms because there are fewer constitutional protections, reporting requirements and appellate checks on private sector surveillance and data collection, which enables police to circumvent privacy laws. US law enforcement agencies get much of their information from data brokerage firms, which collect and aggregate information from public records and private sources, e.g., drivers licenses, mortgages, social media, retail loyalty card purchases, professional credentials, charities’ donor lists, bankruptcies, payday lenders, warranty registrations, and other sources who sell personal data. This information is then sold to customers willing to pay for it. Not even the FTC can find out exactly where the data brokers get their information because brokerages cite trade secrecy as an excuse not to divulge their sources. Law enforcement agencies not only uses data collected by private firms, they also use corporate IT platforms and proprietary software applications (e.g., Palantir, Microsoft, Amazon) to store, share and analyze data. Palantir provides an interface that runs on top of other data systems, including legacy systems, making it possible to link data points across separate systems. Source: Sarah Brayne (2020) Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing, Oxford University Press, pp. 24-25, 41-42.
- notepad0x90 4mo ago
hmm37 4mo ago
Now they just need to get rid of stuff like Sec. 622 of this bill proposal (https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/s4615/BILLS-119s4615pcs.pdf https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/s4615/BILLS-119s4615pcs.p...) which would give all US intelligence to Israel.
iamnothere 4mo ago
Rare good news. I hate to see so much knee-jerk doomerism. Don’t forget to celebrate small wins even if the battle isn’t over.
k310 4mo ago
Government doesn't need warrants. They spy the old-fashioned way. They BUY it from our surveillance capitalist overlords. They are interchangeable pieces these days.
CGMthrowaway 4mo ago
Is there one person here who can explain why we need this extended? If not, why do we always do it (regardless of who's in the White House)? As far as I'm aware, there is a short list of sworn representatives (we actively chose) who have a perfect or near-perfect voting record against it, and everyone else do not. Those people are Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Chip Roy (R-TX) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)

93 points by ck2 4mo ago

ck2 4mo ago

I'm sure this administration will totally obey that without any enforcement or penalties and pardons awaiting oh wait, it could still be renewed/recreated > Democrats have refused to back an extension of Section 702 unless Trump reverses his decision to name Pulte as acting DNI I guess it's their only card to play but still, how about no warrantless anything considering there's a Constitution and all that

iAMkenough 4mo ago
Who enforces the Constitution? SCOTUS is capable of reinterpreting any Constitutional right you have and create carve outs for “national security” boogeymen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop
- Analemma_ 4mo ago
  [dead]
- galleywest200 4mo ago
  SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism.
  - iAMkenough 4mo ago
    That almost answers the question, but not quite.
toomuchtodo 4mo ago
This administration has an expiration date.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  yeah, it's January 2029. That's how the election timetable works. Assuming there's an election.

sitkack 4mo ago

Surveillance won't stop and the warrants won't start. Now what?

rglover 4mo ago
An opportunistic politician would be wise to draft a bill around surveillance transparency and go to all of the people voting against Section 702 here for support (solid arm twist that backs them into a PR corner).

rdudek 4mo ago

I have to admire the double-dipping business model of private companies getting paid by local governments to setup surveillance cameras and harvest data. Then the same goverment will pay to get warrantless access to that same data.

ck2 4mo ago
is it just double-dipping the spending (this might be your point) or it is actually doing an end-run around laws against governments doing the surveillance themselves, instead they get private companies to do it and then it's perfectly legal to buy the data just like government buys cellphone tracking data and mortgage data from private brokers when there are laws blocking them doing it directly
- Henchman21 4mo ago
  There’s a word for government & business collaboration of this type.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    it's called "government contracting", but you were thinking of "fascism", weren't you? Fascism does mix state and corporate power, but that's not a definitive part of it. Fascism mixes all powers because the nature of fascism is to only tolerate one power, which is itself. This doesn't mean that every time the government and corporations work together, it's fascism.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]

0xbadcafebee 4mo ago

https://archive.is/p0sBN https://archive.is/p0sBN

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

inigyou 4mo ago

My chosen interpretation is that they've let it expire because they've found enough ways to spy on us that they don't need it. Ranging from getting everything they need from advertising companies and Flock, to just ignoring the law and doing it anyway because they know it won't be enforced.

nacozarina 4mo ago
Correct, the authorization was only needed for the govt to spy on you directly. Private business has no such restrictions, the govt can now buy any info from Palantir, Google, Lexis, ad infinitum
- diogenes_atx 4mo ago
  According to an academic study, US law enforcement agencies at every level - federal, state and local - no longer need warrants in order to get access to most data on American citizens. It is easier for law enforcement to purchase data from private firms because there are fewer constitutional protections, reporting requirements and appellate checks on private sector surveillance and data collection, which enables police to circumvent privacy laws. US law enforcement agencies get much of their information from data brokerage firms, which collect and aggregate information from public records and private sources, e.g., drivers licenses, mortgages, social media, retail loyalty card purchases, professional credentials, charities’ donor lists, bankruptcies, payday lenders, warranty registrations, and other sources who sell personal data. This information is then sold to customers willing to pay for it. Not even the FTC can find out exactly where the data brokers get their information because brokerages cite trade secrecy as an excuse not to divulge their sources. Law enforcement agencies not only uses data collected by private firms, they also use corporate IT platforms and proprietary software applications (e.g., Palantir, Microsoft, Amazon) to store, share and analyze data. Palantir provides an interface that runs on top of other data systems, including legacy systems, making it possible to link data points across separate systems. Source: Sarah Brayne (2020) Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing, Oxford University Press, pp. 24-25, 41-42.
notepad0x90 4mo ago

hmm37 4mo ago

Now they just need to get rid of stuff like Sec. 622 of this bill proposal (https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/s4615/BILLS-119s4615pcs.pdf https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/s4615/BILLS-119s4615pcs.p...) which would give all US intelligence to Israel.

iamnothere 4mo ago

Rare good news. I hate to see so much knee-jerk doomerism. Don’t forget to celebrate small wins even if the battle isn’t over.

k310 4mo ago

Government doesn't need warrants. They spy the old-fashioned way. They BUY it from our surveillance capitalist overlords. They are interchangeable pieces these days.

CGMthrowaway 4mo ago

Is there one person here who can explain why we need this extended? If not, why do we always do it (regardless of who's in the White House)? As far as I'm aware, there is a short list of sworn representatives (we actively chose) who have a perfect or near-perfect voting record against it, and everyone else do not. Those people are Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Chip Roy (R-TX) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)