House Passes Bill To Renew NSA Internet Spying Tool (reuters.com) 114
Dustin Volz, reporting for Reuters: The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a bill to renew the National Security Agency's warrantless internet surveillance program, overcoming objections from privacy advocates and confusion prompted by morning tweets from President Donald Trump that initially questioned the spying tool. The legislation, which passed 256-164 and split party lines, is the culmination of a yearslong debate in Congress on the proper scope of U.S. intelligence collection -- one fueled by the 2013 disclosures of classified surveillance secrets by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Senior Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives had urged cancellation of the vote after Trump appeared to cast doubt on the merits of the program, but Republicans forged ahead.
Even More Interesting Than This... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's at least got a better claim of news for nerds than my attempted Congressional Candidacy announcement via slashdot--which went purple. OTOH I do have a solution for identity theft [johnmoserforcongress.com] and the post was right after Equifax got hacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent, I would vote for you...well I'm not from Maryland or even the US, but I like your policies :-P
Protip: Get HSTS on your website for cypherpunk brownie points ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, NationBuilder forwards to their own domain for SSL. They're in the middle of finally getting SSL on all custom domains so we can move away from HTTP. So if you donate to my campaign [johnmoserforcongress.com], it will shove you to a different domain under https instead of http.
It's kind of annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you open a hotel, could I rent a room in it? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
This message is incredibly contradictory.
Don't donate to my campaign...
--
Donate to my campaign!
These messages will be cited completely out of context during your race and your activity on Slashdot will be your ruin. Live and die by the / and . I suppose. ... I'm only half kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... I'm a Marylander but I'm not in his district so I intentionally didn't read much on his web site... because I don't want to be any more disappointed in my options.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No disrespect meant, but if you'd like I can start listing stories which you personally posted that the only source was a personal blog. Why is there suddenly a higher standard for this story? If it's a site wide policy recently introduced to improve the quality of the content, then I'm all for it. If it's just an arbitrary requirement you've added because you find the story distasteful....well, yeah.
Though my question is, what will your personal response be if you hold this story to a higher level, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently, two Firehose submissions of the same exact story from a right-wing website qualifies as "burning up the Firehose".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the ones made form asbestos.
Aww crap.
Re:Even More Interesting Than This... (Score:4, Funny)
We're aware of the story. But we need credible sources to corroborate the claims before we run it here.
Oh, this is rich. msmash now requires "credible sources". Thank God I wasn't taking a drink when I read that.
Re: (Score:3)
We're aware of the story. But we need credible sources to corroborate the claims before we run it here.
*Blink*
I welcome this new policy. I really do.
Will it be accompanied by pink ponies?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Hundreds of stories about Russia hacking the election, which never happened and has no credible sources, and now all of a sudden Slashdot requires "credible sources."
Now I remember why I had "forgotten" my login for the longest time.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice bait "hacking the election". Excellent revisionism, goal post shifting, and putting words in peoples' mouths.
Except grandparent is right, there were a large amount of literal fake news on slashdot about russia hacking the election
Re: (Score:1)
How much more credible can it get when the information is coming straight from the Twitter engineers mouth? LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
We're aware of the story. But we need credible sources to corroborate the claims before we run it here.
This must be a joke, have you guys not read what you let on the front page??
It's fine to report it. (Score:2)
"Industry experts are reacting to reports of alleged [...] from anonymous sources who claim to be close to the individuals at the event who also wish to remain anonymous."
Good enough for Pulitzer Prize winning news outlets, good enough for Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Buzzfeed and Vice are sources that are credible in the eyes of msmash
Re: (Score:1)
Remember all three work for HIM now, and any confusion is due to unwillingness to learn, inability to learn, or incapacity to store data
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Bush... retarded. Reagan... Alzheimer... Trump.. has to be explained everything... even though he's made billions, and lost billions, too. And he still won't understand. Give him a pacifier and something shiny or maybe a gorilla TV show.
Re:Even More Interesting Than This... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only source reporting the "shadowban" is James O'Keefe, who has never, ever broken an honest story. I would think that before you believe anything a source has to say, there needs to be at least one instance of that source not being dishonest.
Whatever your definition of credible source, O'Keefe and Project Veritas are the exact opposite of that.
Re: (Score:1)
Does O'Keefe hire voice actors to make it seem like Twitter and CNN employees say things they actually don't, or do you just consider recording people without their knowledge to be dishonest reporting?
Re: (Score:1)
No, he employs editorsK to make it seem like they say something they actually don't.
Re: (Score:1)
Care to provide an example of an edit in a Project Veritas video that wildly changed the context of the statement?
Did James O'Keefe edit several innocuous videos of a Twitter engineer together to create a narrative about shadowbanning?
“One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content. So they just think that no one is engaging with the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dishonest from start to finish.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
https://www.snopes.com/2016/10... [snopes.com]
FISA Section 702 = Mass surveillance on Americans (Score:4, Interesting)
Until there are meaningful restrictions and requirements to report "incidental" collections of Americans communications then we know this still law and others are being used for mass surveillance of Americans on American soil.
When congress yet again passes the buck on this law it will be up to the President to step up and order those restrictions and reporting be put into place.
Re:FISA Section 702 = Mass surveillance on America (Score:4, Interesting)
When congress yet again passes the buck on this law it will be up to the President to step up and order those restrictions and reporting be put into place.
Unfortunately one of the few examples of bipartisanship coming out of Washington over the past decade or so has been the continual support for the erosion of Americans' rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
Re: FISA Section 702 = Mass surveillance on Americ (Score:3)
Somewhat encouraging to see President Trump express some push back and to see 183 votes for some reform.
President Trump could easily just order additional reforms himself, or at least order a report on how many Americans are getting their communications swept up without a warrant.
Re: FISA Section 702 = Mass surveillance on Americ (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Except his second tweet said that he didn't support the privacy exceptions and his concern was the ability of government to "unmask" americans colluding with foreign governments.
Don't fool yourself, Trump fully supports this as do most of the Republicans and Democrats. There are a few people on both sides opposing the bill and pushing the privacy protections but if counted by party (which you shouldn't) more Democrats wanted the privacy restrictions than Republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
He also announced his support for the program 10 minutes after he expressed pushback.
This is.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, those who do have nefarious plans have access to unbreakable encryption, and aren't going to stop using it just because congress passes a law.
Hell, even from a conservative point of view it should be obvious that businesses outside the US are still going to use it, and win an advantage over law-abiding US businesses who won't.
Re: (Score:2)
This is EXACTLY why the people *MUST* have access to unbreakable encryption. The government doesn't have any right to know when someone's spouse asks them to pick up milk on their way home!
You have access to unbreakable encryption now..
The ONLY unbreakable encryption technique is a one time use pad that uses truly random data for the pad.
All you need is a way to generate and distribute the pads securely...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! How did you know I picked up milk on the way home last night?
Vote (Score:2)
Re:Vote (Score:5, Informative)
It would have been better if you had posted the link to the right roll. The one you posted is about rapid DNA analysis, not the counter individual network act. Try http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... [house.gov]
And weep.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been better if you had posted the link to the right roll. The one you posted is about rapid DNA analysis, not the counter individual network act. Try http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... [house.gov]
And weep.
Funny enough the "Rapid DNA Act of 2017 is actually the http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... [slashdot.org]">correct roll call. The text of what was on the schedule as the "Rapid DNA Act of 2017 was completely replaced with the text for the FISA 702 extension.
This was the Amash amendment Roll Call [house.gov] for the amendment that would have included some privacy protections.
Apparently it is a somewhat common practice that bills get swapped out in this fashion. It threw me at first also.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that is just twisted. How are we to know what our representatives voted for and against, if the bill has nothing to do with the bill?
If a congresscritter shows as having voted NAY for "allow offshore oil drilling", and AYE on "increase NASA Earth Science funding", he might have voted for warrantless surveillance and against the right of immigrants to have abortion?
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been better if you had posted the link to the right roll. The one you posted is about rapid DNA analysis, not the counter individual network act. Try http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... [house.gov]
And weep.
Sorry copy paste screwed up... but yes it was the Rapid DNA Act of 2017 [house.gov]
that was the FISA extension. Passed 256 to 164
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We all expected the republicans to vote for it, but 44 didn't. With those votes the democrats could have stopped it, but didn't. In truth they're not really against it. So they throw in just enough votes to squeeze it through, and make various excuses. You can save your breath, the renewals will pass no matter who is swinging the gavel.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm.. Bipartisan support and you and Rand Paul (R) are pissed off.. .Nice...
Might there be a valid reason we need this law that both parties in congress actually recognizes? Need this always be attributed to some nefarious intent?
Have your temper tantrum but your best way to block this is in the Senate anyway. You can count on Rand Paul to oppose this, just get the democrats to vote as a block and this is scuttled...
Re: (Score:1)
Might there be a valid reason we need this law that both parties in congress actually recognizes?
No, but I have always acknowledge that the majority isn't really against it. Doesn't make it right, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Need this always be attributed to some nefarious intent?
History speaks for itself. It's just the way people play. *I can accept that*.
Rand Paul plans to filibuster in the Senate (Score:5, Informative)
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is prepared to filibuster the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is up for a vote in the House to authorize a six-year extension, in an effort to get warrant requirement for Americans.
“My worry is that they also collect information on millions of Americans, and I don’t want that database to be searched without a warrant,” “I will filibuster and do whatever to stop that,” he added.
In the event that protections were included for U.S. citizens’ private information, Paul said he would support reauthorizing Section 702.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump was targeted by this... lets see how Putin tells him to feel about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)