Senate Defeats Amendment To Shield Browsing Histories in FISA Searches (politico.com) 70
The Senate on Wednesday blocked a bipartisan effort to shield Americans' internet browsing and search histories from warrantless surveillance. From a report: Lawmakers voted 59-37 on an amendment by Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to a House-approved bill that would reauthorize domestic surveillance authorities. It was the first in a series of at least three amendment votes that senators agreed to in March. The intelligence tools expired on March 15 after senators left town without renewing key sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, amid objections from privacy hawks who said the compromise bill didn't go far enough to safeguard Americans' personal data and communications. Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, noted in a floor speech that Americans are relying on the internet more than ever due to the Covid-19 pandemic. "Don't those Americans deserve some measure of privacy?" he asked, arguing that without the amendment "it is open season on anybody's most personal information."
Re: (Score:1)
The law has already regulated this through the constitution. No warrantless searches should be made on US citizens. It doesn't need a law clarifying which citizens this applies to, let it expire and fight it in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Constitution? oh boy... man... do I got some unfortunate news for you!
Let it expire. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let it expire. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work.
They'll just have a Bill up every few years renewing everything with an expiration date on it.
Unfortunately, the only real solution to something like this is well into the realm of Ain't Gonna Happen - and that would be vote out anyone who voted for this....
And even that won't work well. Because some group will see an advantage in the Other Guys voting their guys out (to wit: Committee Chairmen and such are picked from among the most experienced Congresscritters, so if we don't vote our guy
Re: (Score:1)
i.e. army closes and ends in two years and a new one must be raised.
So, new appropriations every year, same army.
End run
Re: (Score:2)
You misquoted the clause. It's “raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,”
So, specifically, you cannot pull money aside one year to be used three years later, but says nothing about the army having to be disbanded after two years. It was disingenuous to misquote it the way you did. Doubly so since the US had formed after a conflict that had required an army to fight against the British for over 8 years, and it's ridiculous to t
They do expire, and have individual votes like thi (Score:2)
We're talking about a FISA renewal vote (again) precisely because many programs, including FISA *do* have expiration dates, and they are NOT in fact renewed en masse.
FISA has actually been renewed in 2008, 2012, 2017, and 2020, each time with changes. (Also modified in 2007).
So your prediction about what would happen when FISA comes up for renewal is actually predicting the past. The prediction about the past is wrong. Each time it gets modified.
Speaking of predicting the past, wrongly, it's interesting to
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have it wrong. Give every bill a 20 year expiration. (I'm using 20 years for discussion. Just something less than a life time and fixed.) If you can prove it hasn't been enforce in some short period of time (say 10 years) the public can trigger an early expiration. If someone can prove a law is being enforce selectively, the public (perhaps a defendant) can trigger an immediate expiration.
Note this important point. By being "expired", that means it's still potentially enforceable. But it
Re: Let it expire. (Score:2)
That could become as shitted on as the âoelimited timesâ clause in the constitution for copyrights and patents. The government just laugh in the face of the founders and set the limited time to essentially infinity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The FISA Courts haven't exactly worked as advertised."
They may not work as advertised, but they almost certain work as intended.
What I don't get - some USAian needs to chime in here: aren't secret courts and secret court orders kind of a violation of y'all's Constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
The FISA Courts haven't exactly worked as advertised.
It sounds like you're not clear about for whom they're supposed to "work." I'll give you a hint; you are not the customer
oxymoron (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny that the "open private window" function merely disables saving of history to YOUR device. By going "private", you're only deleting your copy of the data. Everybody else still knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the Slashdot recommended VPN of choice these days?
Re: oxymoron (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh..that's interesting!!
I saw a mention of something like that the other day....do you have any more info or links to this, what to run, how much it costs, etc?
Re: (Score:2)
ssh -D 1337 -q -C -N [username]@[AWSinstanceAddress]
Here is a decent walkthrough [ttias.be].
Re: (Score:2)
All the VPN companies are likely run by various countries' secret police, probably yours or has a deal with yours to shared data. This is even if those companies appear to be hosted in a different/antagonistic country - anyone, including your country's secret police, can open up shop in any other country.
The only VPN that has a chance to work reliably is TOR or similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Folks have been paranoid that their secrets would be exposed to their partners long before Edward Snowden made the rest of the world aware of just how visible the modern citizen really is.
That's why I'm always behind seven proxies. Good luck.
Is this really a concern? (Score:2)
Assuming you follow common sense practices, which I tell family, friends and coworkers to follow, you should clear your browser every day, at least once, and have it set to clear on close. You should always use at least a single hop VPN, if not a multiple hop and when possible you should route over TOR, just to add a layer of security. On top of that I recommend running something like BleachBit at least once a day just to make sure you clean u
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why?
What in the world are you looking at?
Nobody cares about my browsing history.
Re:Is this really a concern? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Is this really a concern? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this really a concern? (Score:4, Funny)
Nobody cares about my browsing history.
... he said, before his insurance rates went up because a data algorithm noted his browser had perused herbal remedies for tachycardia, and before he found he couldn't run for office because he'd browsed a gay pornsite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How long do you keep browsing data or really any browser data? Assuming you follow common sense practices, which I tell family, friends and coworkers to follow, you should clear your browser every day, at least once, and have it set to clear on close. You should always use at least a single hop VPN, if not a multiple hop and when possible you should route over TOR, just to add a layer of security. On top of that I recommend running something like BleachBit at least once a day just to make sure you clean up temp activity. There's very little reason to let data sit around unless you have a reason to keep it, and if you have a reason to keep it, then it should be encrypted or stored in a method that doesn't leave it flapping in in the wind.
And not disable javascript!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I leave the house, I like to lock all the windows, put up "No Trespassing" signs, throw a tarp over the TV, and rearrange the digits of my address.
Closing and locking the front door is reasonable. I generally leave it open, but that's my choice, and I can lock it with a click.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you're browsing sensitive topics, it's probably best to use a completely separate browser, preferably even a separate OS, like Tails. I don't recommend that everyone clear their browser history/cache daily or upon close simply because cached files do reduce latency, and the ability to search history can be very useful. I want to have my h
Re: (Score:2)
Using multiple browsers is an excellent idea and one I readily practice. If I'm doing something "risky" I might even spin up a quick VM just to make sure that whatever happens doesn't corrupt my entire system. On that note, OS selection is also important, while I don't recommend that people install something like Quebes OS on every computer, I do think you should taller the OS for the computers use. Well Windows might be fine for my children's computer, it's not so
Re: LAW ENFORCEMENT REQUIRES FULL DATA ACCESS!!! (Score:1)
IMHO, is your opinion all that humble?
Re: (Score:2)
this is just until (Score:1)
It doesn't matter (Score:2)
Re: It doesn't matter (Score:1)
Paranoia is not a valid excuse for stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, "pretty soon" happened a long time ago:
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) [eff.org]
They Are Watching You—and Everything Else on the Planet [nationalgeographic.com]
Tracking people via WiFi (even when not connected) [crc.id.au]
Etc., etc.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.bloomberg.com/feat... [bloomberg.com]
Defeated by 1 vote (Score:5, Informative)
To be clear for everyone reading this, the amendment failed by one vote. It's complicated but the amendment needed 60/100 votes to pass due to Senate rules on restricting debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the reauthorization of FISA isn't subject to the same 60/100 threshold.
Two reforms that are badly needed are (a) mandatory sunset clauses and (b) a minimum 4/5 majority requirement to pass any bill. I would add a limit on the complexity of any one bill, but first we'd have to decide how to measure that in a way that can't be easily gamed.
We need more voter turnout (Score:2)
Voter suppression is a huge problem, with polls waits in excess of 7 hours, polls near universities being routinely closed and massive purges of legitimate voters from the rolls. There are plans to implement voter Id laws again (which may pass in the new Supreme Court) and even to start allowing poll watchers again....
What this country needs is National Vote By Mail, Automati
Re:We need more voter turnout (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest objection to Ranked Choice Voting is that it is too complicated for the public to understand.
But Maine has adopted RCV, the change is popular with the public, and it seems to be working well.
RCV tends to favor moderate centrists.
Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah have universal vote-by-mail. VBM favors Democrats so Republicans tend to resist its adoption.
19 states have some form of automatic voter registration. AVR also tends to favor Democrats, and most states adopting it are blue.
Rule of thumb: Anything that makes voting easier helps Democrats. Anything that makes voting harder, including bad weather on election day, helps Republicans.
Re: (Score:1)
Anything that makes voter fraud easier seems to indeed benefit Democrats. Peculiar how that works.
More than 800 mail-in votes in one of New Jersey's largest cities have already been set aside. Those hundreds of votes represent about six percent of all ballots that have been sent in thus far in Paterson's election Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest objection to regular simple non-ranked choice voting is that voters are sometimes forced to vote strategically, which necessarily entails guessing how others will vote.
Ranked choice voting promises, by making the algorithm used more complex, 'simplify' voting choices by making it seem, due to the more complex rules that there is no longer a need to vote strategically, guessing what other voters will do to vote reflecting your will.
However this promise is a lie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What RCV does is make the rules of the game more complex, so that it requires more mental effort to vote strategically.
This is not exactly correct. RCV will greatly reduce the chances that the correct "strategic vote" is different from "vote first for the person you like the most". It "requires more mental effort to vote strategically" because it is much, much harder to come up with a reason to vote differently than your favorites, partly because it is complex, but mostly because there are far fewer cases o
Re: (Score:2)
It's a very strange argument: "You are too dumb to understand ranked choice voting so we shouldn't have it. You are a moron, right? You don't want this."
But that's exactly what people opposed to it argue, in slightly less obvious terms. It happened in the UK when we tried to change the system, you had the incredible and depressing spectacle of members of the public going on national TV to tell the country they didn't understand something so simple a 6 year old could grasp it, and acting like they were proud
Bernie was a no vote along with Ben Sasse (Score:1)
Lacking consequences for violations of our trust (Score:1)
Individual Votes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The senators had decided it will fail, then negotiated risky seats to be allowed to vote for it until it almost passed. So it didn't "almost pass". It just seems that way.
This is a common trick with bills they don't want passed but are popular.
Read the entire amendment (Score:2)
After much searching last night, I finally found the text of the actual amendment. The part about browser histories, etc., was section 103, about 10 lines of several hundred lines of a couple dozen other sections, all in legalese. Further, the voting (for or against) wasn't at all along party lines.
Sure, the media is making it out like anyone who voted against the bill was voting in favor of FISA courts granting access to browser histories, but in reality, that was only one small fraction of what these Se