Secret Text In Senate Bill Would Give FBI Warrantless Access To Email Records (theintercept.com) 157
mi quotes a report from The Intercept: A provision snuck into the still-secret text of the Senate's annual intelligence authorization would give the FBI the ability to demand individuals' email data and possibly web-surfing history from their service providers using those beloved 'National Security Letters' -- without a warrant and in complete secrecy. [The spy bill passed the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, with the provision in it. The lone no vote came from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who wrote in a statement that one of the bill's provisions "would allow any FBI field office to demand email records without a court order, a major expansion of federal surveillance powers." If passed, the change would expand the reach of the FBI's already highly controversial national security letters. The FBI is currently allowed to get certain types of information with NSLs -- most commonly, information about the name, address, and call data associated with a phone number or details about a bank account. The FBI's power to issue NSLs is actually derived from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- a 1986 law that Congress is currently working to update to incorporate more protections for electronic communications -- not fewer. The House unanimously passed the Email Privacy Act in late April, while the Senate is due to vote on its version this week. "NSLs have a sordid history. They've been abused in a number of ways, including targeting of journalists and use to collect an essentially unbounded amount of information," Andrew Crocker, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote. One thing that makes them particularly easy to abuse is that recipients of NSLs are subject to a gag order that forbids them from revealing the letters' existence to anyone, much less the public.]
R.I.P. Land of the Free (Score:2, Insightful)
We should all be ashamed. We don't deserve freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I am sure the majority oppose this, it is just the leaders, who are power hungry, who do not. then again certain parties and their "if you got nothing to hide" and "there has to be a balance" arguments have fooled me before.
Re:R.I.P. Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
The majority hears 'it's for safety, you wouldn't want to help the terrorists kill children, would you' and, without a critical thought in their head, vote it and those leaders all the way to the courthouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget about the kittens.... you forgot the kittens.
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is that the majority supports this.
Assent is lacking. We don't remember these violations long enough to keep voting out the weasels.
As long as they have food on the table, people want dictators.
By that token, people want anything. Dictators promise anything.
Look at statistics on popular support for Snowden, for example.
And his act is entirely misunderstood by so many. What we don't know is infinitely more dangerous than what is admitted to. Our enemies know. We should also
Re: (Score:3)
Talking about the majority opinion as if it matters hurts individual liberty. The majority is irrelevant when we are talking about individual rights.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't actually read the bills. That's why the FBI buries the clause deep in the bill. Thank god for Ron Wyden, that man has protected the public numerous times and I hope he's able to block this.
Re: (Score:2)
Should not it be passed by both Senate and Congress first? And then be signed by the President before we bury the country?
Re:R.I.P. Land of the Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think that those things aren't going to happen? Have you seen anything in the post- USA PATRIOT Act Congressional history that says that this won't become law except for the loud noises made from a few 'fringe' Senators that actually give a damn about the Bill of Rights?
Re: (Score:3)
What, exactly, do you believe the (D) and (R) parties differ on, in areas like this? There are a few people on both sides that vehemently oppose laws like this, and are summarily pushed to the edge and called "kooks", and "extremists". And it works, because too many politicians are more concerned with getting reelected than doing what is right for our country.
The problem is, we keep trading in our liberties, for the illusion of security, creating a monster state that has limitless power to enslave us all. I
Re: R.I.P. Land of the Free (Score:1)
My wish is that the exemption of congressional staff is secretly removed at some point and our political leaders get to eat their own dog food. Who needs to be tracked more than those with the most money and power?
Re: (Score:2)
Time for you to move elsewhere. Freedom and liberty are not given. They are literally, literally fought for, constantly. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. You choose.
Re: R.I.P. Land of the Free (Score:2)
All deserve freedom. Some will let it be taken from them. Others will not.
Gary Johnson (Score:2)
Simpsons US Army invades (Score:1)
National Broccol day bill.
US law needs to change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Never going to happen because the people who could slip it in have a vest interest in keeping things the way they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be used until it is needed by the Government to suppress the will of the people, and then it will be used against the enemies of the state (aka us citizens).
That is how all these things work. And instead of preventing abuse by not allowing it in the first place, people (I'm guessing you're okay with this) like you allow such things to go through, under the illusion that they won't ever be abused. Naive at best, delusional at worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can't really do this, people find a way to claim it is related to anything.
What they CAN do is give the original submitter of a bill veto power over all riders.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. If they want to get a provision in, they should write their own bill to do so. Or at the very least, have an extremely strict and difficult process for unfriendly amendments.
Unfriendly amendments do have a place, but the completely unrelated nature of a lot of amendments out there just shits all over the value of the concept.
Re: (Score:3)
Under trump we will not let stuff like Warrants, due process, jury's, bans on waterboarding, etc get in our way.
Re:US law needs to change (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes and under Hillary we just won't worry about words mean so any existing law can be used however she wants and rules won't apply to herself and people she likes. That sounds so much better sign me up.
Honestly I don't understand how ANYONE can make the case the Hillary is different than Trump other than what "team" she purports to be playing for.
Hillary contradicting herself for 13min on just about every current issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Look the only questions in this election are do you like the list Trump put forward for the SCOTUS candidates and do you want people like Paul Ryan to get legislation passed. If the answer is yes then vote for Trump because he isn't any worse than Hillary. The polls indicate he can actually win. If you abstain or vote for a third party you are effectively voting for Hillary that is the reality of the system.
If you like what his happen in Washington right now vote HRC, but don't think for a second that makes you a more responsible person or anything of the sort. She isn't by any measure more qualified to be president than he is. She was unaccomplished as a Senator, and her tenure as sec State was nothing other than a string of failures and scandals. Having had an important job before that you performed terribly at isn't a qualification for promotion.
broken by definition (Score:2)
Honestly I don't understand how ANYONE can make the case the Hillary is different than Trump other than what "team" she purports to be playing for.
The difference is this: under president Hillary nothing changes at all from what we have now, and under the Donald it's looking very likely to get worse but with a remote possibility that some small things might actually change.
Frankly, I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for either one of them, not even in protest of the other. It's fucking ridiculous, the Republicans are running a "Man of the People" who's a billionaire, and the Democrats are running the one single person in America so hated she c
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, I agree entirely.
Argument over transgender rights has killed a major spending bill in Congress [businessinsider.com]
The rancorous political debate over sexual identity unexpectedly prompted the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to rejected an energy and water spending bill on Thursday after Democrats attached an amendment to protect the rights of transgender people
However, your point is not applicable in this case because the so-called "snuck in provision" is part of the Senate's INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 [congress.gov] and is related to the FBI's counterintelligence duties which falls under purview of national security.
Re: (Score:1)
You do know who writes the law, right? To change the law in our favor will require a voter referendum. I don't know if the feds recognize those things.
Re: (Score:2)
You start a movement to elect people who promise to eliminate riders and punish those who do not. And maintain consistency. There are groups out there that can be that insistent and get what they want (NRA, Norquist, etc), no reason that you can't get what you want... eventually.
I do wish we could have some sort of referendum process for overriding Congress, though. Eliminating riders would be an excellent first step.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. More than anything, if you want to hold your representatives accountable, I think a political movement to end riders is possibly one of the best ways to do so. I feel it is on the same level as term limits. Indeed, it may be more important than term limits.
Adding riders to otherwise vital bills has both the effect of ensuring that bad provisions are passed when they wouldn't have on their own merits, but also, it implicates legislators in decisions which they may not have supported if it had bee
The solution has been around for years. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
. . . .but J. Random User out there doesn't know of, much less use PGP or Gnu Privacy Guard. . .
Re:The solution has been around for years. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
I've had PGP for 7 years. In that time I've exchanged 2 keys..... and 1 belonged to my wife which I setup for her.
Re: (Score:1)
J Random User doesn't really care either. In fact, there are many people out there who have zero cares about privacy, saying, "I have nothing to hide", even posting his life onto social networks.
The funny thing is that stuff gets saved forever. I personally have had to talk about USENET posts I made in sci.crypt back in 1991 when an interviewer asked about that (although it wasn't a bad thing.) What would be concerning is if some law came around that made the statute of limitations null for any crime tha
Re: (Score:2)
PGP doesn't protect the metadata nor even email subject. Also, it isn't popular even among highly technical crowd. Right now, among 704 mails in my INBOX there's just two encrypted (despite 86 being signed).
A good idea for privacy for mainstream users would be deploying DANE. It provides transport encryption that's not vulnerable to MITM -- and some ISPs already MITM all SMTP [techdirt.com].
Obviously, transport encryption doesn't protect you against the server reading your mail. The likes of Gmail read your mail thems
Re: (Score:2)
PGP is needed, because it does something few applications do -- it works regardless of the transport layer. I can PGP encrypt a document, E-mail it, or I can send it via SMS, MMS, copy it to a SD card and put it in a dead drop, post to alt.anonymous.messages, or any number of ways. In any case, the document will be encrypted, and signed, so the receiver is assured of its security, no matter how public the transportation is.
Of course, PGP isn't perfect... it is a standard made in 1993. It needs forward se
"Secret Text In Senate Bill" (Score:2)
The Constitution (Score:2)
is just a piece of paper if people ignore it.
Solution: Don't give your data away (Score:1)
The only so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd really be interested in a technical argument why this is un-doable. Or your alternative to the mess we've got now.
Re: (Score:2)
"we've evolved to a bizarro state where we must hand over our content to strangers in order for it to be useful to us. "
Yes. Like the Postal Service. Telephones.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not ok with the way things are going privacy-wise. Would you do anything to change it?
Re: Solution: Don't give your data away (Score:2)
You think warrants are always issued for mail intercepts, pen registers, and such?
Since when does law trump the Constituion? (Score:2)
There's no way that this can be constitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes it can. Remember, the 4th amendment is based around your person, affects and residence. Email is typically stored by a third party, thus is not protected by the 4th."
So paper, postal mail, is likewise not protected? Much law is written recognizing and enforcing such a right, and so must be extended to electronic mail.
Does my residence no longer deserve protection when I leave it for work? No. My personal possessions, despite being removed from my presence, are still mine, and a reasonable expectation o
Fourth Amendment vs. Second Amendment! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
There is no big industry that depends on the 4th like there is for the 2nd. No money, no lobby
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fourth Amendment vs. Second Amendment! (Score:4, Informative)
Amen.
EFF, EFA, BMLP, RT4CHICAGO, ICANN, there are others. Know, understand, and support them.
Re: (Score:3)
ACLU is quite rabid about protecting the Fourth, First, etc. The problem is that they have a tiny fraction of the NRA's budget. The problem is that people like talking but aren't so fond of putting money where their mouth is.
Re: (Score:2)
They would have even less money or a lack of existence if they had protected the 2nd Amendment as well; when the ACLU was founded, one of the major monetary contributors made that stipulation. They continue to support the collective interpretation undermining their own position on individual rights belonging to "people".
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they spend to protect the 2nd amendment, when it is well protected by the NRA? The NRA has about 10x the resources and cares about 1/10 as much of the Bill of Rights. I have no real problem with the NRA, but if you give money to it but not to the ACLU, EFF, or some similar organization, then you can't really complain when the First or Fourth amendments are endangered.
Re: (Score:2)
I just gave the reason; when the ACLU was founded, a stipulation from one of the major donors was that they *not* protect the 2nd Amendment.
And in 1920, what was the NRA doing? When the NRA got involved, which did not happen until after the NFA in 1934, up until the 1970, it supported gun control.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm fairly sure that encryption vendors, IT firms, etc can make money on it, though not necessarily always directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Apple might disagree with you. Of course you realize the 4th amendment only restricts the government and not the corporations.
Mail in Australia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You think they would resist? The FBI is a world cop.
Re: (Score:2)
Encrypt all the things (Score:2)
All the more reason to switch your e-mail off the Google or any other American host company and over to Ghostmail or Protonmail.
The Swiss are serious about privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Swiss cheese is full of holes, so you can logically conclude that their security is full of holes too.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... The Swiss used to be serious about the privacy of financial information too. Then they stopped.
Keep in mind this is illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, until there is sufficient demand to bring up charges, we'll just have to sit and watch the disaster unfold.
Re: (Score:2)
Treason is rather specifically defined in the Constitution. This is not treason. Malfeasance, yes, and violation of their oath of office, etc., but not treason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. SOME of the Founding Fathers would be appalled and ashamed. Others would think it was a dandy idea. Check out the Alien and Sedition acts, and when they were passed.
WE are the people who should be appalled and ashamed.
So let me try to figure this out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That word does not mean what you think it does.
4th Amendment (Score:2)
U.S. Constitution: Read It! (Score:2)
So many deluded people in our government who don't know the first thing about America.
Re: (Score:2)
When did Sanders vote for 'it'? Since the issue in the TFA hasn't been voted on by anyone in full congress yet.
Re: (Score:1)
He hasn't physically voted for it but mark my words he will. Neither of the two major parties give a fuck about personal liberties and their sheep don't either. All the elected officials need to use worn out tactics such as "War on drugs, poverty, terrorism, racism, etc." and they will support just about anything the Republicrats and Democans put forth. The modding of my first comment clearly shows people are not willing to listen to anything just as long as their favorite carrot is dangled in front of t
Re: (Score:2)
So, 'voted' past tense is a guarantee by you of future action of someone else who typically doesn't vote for this sort of stuff. And I didn't ask about the R or D actions.
Ohhh Kayyyyy
Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, well done. (Score:1)
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a good start. Move to Somalia if thats what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, you think North Korea is the prime example of good government. Somolia isn't a Libertarian Government, it is Anarchy. However, North Korea is a fine example of unlimited Statism, which is what you seem to support.
Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FOR TH (Score:5, Informative)
Dear Dipshit:
Before spouting off nonsense and idiocy, please inform yourself on the workings of the Senate, or at least some basic information on which Senators sit on which committees. For example, when you specifically cite Senator Sanders as voting for this bill, you should probably not just make that up as that could be considered to be libel. To refute your absolutely false claim, I present you with the web site for the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence [senate.gov] which prominently features the roster of Senators that sit on that committee, and thus vote to advance a bill for the full Senate to vote on. Please note that Senator Sanders is not among them, and also please note that this bill has not been debated on the Senate floor, much less voted to end debate, much less voted on final passage.
Thank you, go take a god damn civics class, and don't post on anything happening in the Congress again until you do.
Re: (Score:2)
What you said.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, go take a god damn civics class, and don't post on anything happening in the Congress again until you do.
Wait... Things are happening in this Congress? I thought we discussed their inaction [pewresearch.org] before.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but he has a point. Nowhere has Sanders been involved in this, yet. Will he? No idea. Maybe.
Mind you, I have no intention of supporting Sanders or his platform, but it's not necessary to make shit up about him.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except that I didn't vote for Bernie in my primary when I had the opportunity to do so. But don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good anonymous smear.
Re: (Score:1)
No, he has not voted for it. If this particular rider had already been a thing, we wouldn't be hearing about it now like it's news. Because guess what? It's news because it's a new rider being attached right now.
Also, you're a god damn idiot when you say something about "my favorite party" when the only vote against it was from a Democrat - 8 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted for this piece of trash, so both parties are responsible. Take your partisan attack mentality and shove it right up your fat ass.
Re: (Score:1)
We still have things that are at least named both those things, as required courses (at least in some areas)
Re: (Score:2)
Putting a libertarian in office isn't going to imperil any of those things.
Certainly, there are libertarian crackpots out there. I met one who kept referring to schools as "child prisons", for example. Nearly all of the US government is composed of not-libertarians, though, so all you're doing by voting some in is getting some voices to counterbalance notions like it being OK to read our email without a warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
For Complete safety, one must move to North Korea, where the Government dictates everything. And since you are against Liberty, I suggest that is the perfect example of what a world without liberty looks like.
Re: (Score:3)
It is like the right to bear guns: You will only have it as long as you exercise it.
Indeed. Trouble is, we're running out of bears around here... ;-)