Slashdot Mirror
Secret Text In Senate Bill Would Give FBI Warrantless Access To Email Records (theintercept.com)
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.]
We should all be ashamed. We don't deserve freedom.
National Broccol day bill.
Any rider that is unrelated to the title or purpose of a bill should be automatically struck out. Maybe someone should slip this law in as a rider to another bill in order to make the point.
All your emails belong to us.
. . . .but J. Random User out there doesn't know of, much less use PGP or Gnu Privacy Guard. . .
And that is more important than the constitution?
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
When did Sanders vote for 'it'? Since the issue in the TFA hasn't been voted on by anyone in full congress yet.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
is just a piece of paper if people ignore it.
This is the problem the world seems to be overlooking. The absurd assumption is that we'll willingly give our most personal data away; 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. Email is just one example but it's the same across all vectors of your personal data corpus, including social, messaging, video, files, etc., etc., etc.... not to mention the "data exhaust" from your browsing, GPS, and commercial interactions.
The only solution is to organize every person's data according to the PERSON WHO OWNS IT, not sprayed across myriad services, each with its own repository. Those are subject to all sorts of abuse, from corporations, governments, and criminals.
It's time to change the data model to one that empowers human beings, not the institutions that have turned the digital screws on us since the beginning of the Internet. Here's my take on the opportunity:
https://medium.com/@arthurfont...
Does anybody here agree this could work? Or, more appropriately, could it be made to work based on the transformative value it delivers?
My other
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a good start. Move to Somalia if thats what you want.
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 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.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
There's no way that this can be constitutional.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
My right to be free of unreasonable search is defined in the highest law in the country and no "law" can trump that other than a Constitutional Amendment. So the FBI can "demand" whatever they like, but any company or individual is well within their rights to decline, to ignore and to dismiss.
But the globalist are simply trying to convince you that they have an authority when in fact they don't. It's about the "Chain of obedience". See the following video and you will understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcLNoxiPBk
If only there was an organization that was as rabid about upholding the Fourth Amendment as the NRA is about the Second Amendment.
My email provider, fastmail is in Australia so that should make it a little more difficult for them.
Anarchism doesn't work. Neither capital-anarchism (aka libertarianism, aka half-harted anarchism) nor real anarchism.
Unless you're willing to give up safety, roads, safe food, water ...
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.
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 them "Welfare both for the poor and the rich; protection from those evil drug dealers, terrorists, racists, communists, etc." The people are so blinded by their own selfish wants and desires they don''t see they are being used as pawns in a chess match between the two major parties, neither of which give a fuck about the constitution or the liberties granted by the constitution. If they did give a fuck why are they constantly talking about removing liberties rather than protecting them?
______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself
Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to bypass the requirement of a warrant under any circumstance. A member of congress having any part of this bill is treason.
Secret text in a secret law concerning the most secretive of court orders.
To turn the argument around, what are they trying to hide? What dark corners of the security establishment are so awful, so shameful, so antithetical to democracy and freedom, that merits this much secrecy?
The Founding Fathers would be appalled and ashamed.
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.
So we have some secrete text in a bill that may be come law that supposedly allows my government to avoid going to a secrete court to get a secrete warrant to spy on me and instead just secretly spy on me. At this point it seems that it should be a perfect acceptable defense to state that one is ignorant of the law as there is so much effort being put into keeping the law from the governed. Hammurabi's code was put up in public so that people would know what the law was, now it is secretes the whole way down.
Time to offend someone
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Libertarians are just anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
So much weapons in the peoples hands, yet the ussa has the most repressive laws around.
The differences between USSR and USA today are quite small.
We used to have civics classes in public schools. We also used to have drivers education classes in public schools.
What you said.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Since when can Congress bypass a Constitutional amendment with a mere law?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I hear the libertarians are against this kind of things, it's almost as if voting for them is the only way to stop this kind of foul behaviour.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
1.) Say once "Fuck you Spartan Communists !" (That will stick in the heart of the bastards)
2.) Set up an RPI, get a Dyndns name from one of the free providers
3.) Set up a TOR Hidden Service and run a simple Password-Protect Discussion Forum inside. No need for SSL, TOR already provides the encryption. Use that for communicating with your business partners and friends.
4.) Encrypt all files which contain Intellectual Property. Defeat the Spartan Collectivists !
5.) Remember: Athens won over Sparta !
ZIP, Word, Libreoffice and PDF creators already provide the ability to set an 80 bit or better key. That is sufficient to defeat the COMINT Communists. Use it.
It is like the right to bear guns: You will only have it as long as you exercise it.
Be a lion, stop being a sheep.
Complete with Sleep Deprivation (see Manning), Torture and all that.
Our civilization is run by rotten people.
Wow, the Bernie Sanders Internet Defense Force is out in full strength today.
There exist some extremely hard working men out there who care about the big picture. We are not almighty, but we can at least scare the hell out of the 1% criminals. We stopped them in their 1929 2.0 attempt.
Mind you, the 3rd Reich was a consequence of uncontrolled finance.
You can do your fair share by exposing nasty truths, by attending some (please not all, that will consume you) peace demonstrations.
You can be a sceptic, but please not a mindless subscriber to any ideology.
That helps. Spread the word, shame the bastards.
Be careful, they want to silence you. Don't make it easy for them.
As an example, good men stopped the maniacs from waging war on Iran. The glass is half full.
set up an RPI, set up a TOR hidden service. Search on this page for details.
Only sheeple give real information to Facebook.
Just use the symmetric ciphers of ZIP, Word, Libreoffice and when generating a PDF file.
Send the key via a different channel, by snail mail or even by personal courier.
Make it hard for the Intellectual Property Collectivizers !
Mail is legally protected from having the contents disclosed absent a warrant. Whether government or private (aka thief), only the addressed recipient is allowed to open the mail, with certain well-defined exceptions in secure Post Office locations. That doesn't say anything about the contents themselves, which can be in some kind of code or cipher; if the contents need decoding in some way, it's up to the one who opens the mail to deal with that, not the Post Office.
Phones can be tapped to listen in on conversations, with a suitable warrant. If the 'conversation' happens to be scrambled or an encrypted bitstream, well, tough luck; the govt has to figure out how to decrypt that itself. The phone company only has to provide access to the wire if the tap is to be in a location that it controls. Of course, as with the envelope mail is in, the connection records used for billing and routing are available to more or less anybody.
So how SHOULD this be extended to internet-based communications? Part of the problem (also with phones) is that connection records tend to be kept for longer than they really need to be for billing and network management needs, which leaves more information open for discovery; that can be addressed by company policies - why are they wasting disk and backup space with all that info once it's been used for its real purpose? Yes, we know, getting to know you so we can sell ads. Which leaves it all open for discovery by the govt when it wants it.
Then there's the contents - what's in those packets that's not routing information: by analogy to mail and phones, that's nobody's business but the sender and receiver. When in-transit, that can be enforced, more or less, by SSL/TLS links (absent mitm attacks of course); so mitm attacks should be, like opening somebody else's mail, illegal or require a warrant (not a secret one). The other place things are exposed is in the various mail servers and network buffers where copies and made and sometimes kept indefinitely. Again, TOS and EULA notwithstanding, by analogy to mail it should be illegal for anybody other than the account owner to read (and especially write) to those copies absent a warrant (not a secret one!). So much for Google's (and others') business model. Finally, again by analogy to mail and phones, if you want to protect your communication in transit you can encrypt it end-to-end (like ciphering your mail or scrambling your phone). In some countries, encryption is probably illegal, but in the U.S. I'm not aware of any prohibition on using it (yet), at least domestically, and any such prohibition would be extremely damaging not only to personal privacy but to business (do you really want your health and financial records stored in the clear given the level of hacking activity?). So I don't expect it to happen. Which leaves the govt, if it intercepts encrypted traffic or content by legal means, with the job of breaking the encryption. Full-employment act for codebreakers, perhaps, but that's their job. Sorry, no shortcuts!
Just because metadata is useful does not mean you should not encrypt. Quite the contrary. Do the best you can PRACTICALLY do.
PGP failed because it was a shitload of complexity.
What can and does work is ZIP, Word, PDF encryption using a symmetric key. Everybody understands the concept. People can be teached to devise good keys, but I have serious doubts about the PGP clusterf*ck. Maybe that is what the gobbermint wants ??? OpenSSL points towards that.
So: Use simple and effective approaches. This page contains more about that. search for ZIP.
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.
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.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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 before.
Learn to run your own server
Sanders or not. People like hearing the truth and not lies.
Libertarians are just anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
If it is an anarchy then how would there be police?
The Libertarian platform is limited, constitutional government and isn't anarchy absence of any government?
Moreso, how can slavery built upon liberty for all, especially when there is a constitutional amendment that abolished slavery? In a free market what is to stop people from refusing to support any business that has slaves? How would a business keep slaves? A phrase found in the book 1984 describes the Republicrats and Democans to a T.
"war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength"
The two major parties are the ones that are for bills like this, and that sounds more like anti-freedom to me, and slavery is anti-freedom.
______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself
Except the Republicrats and Democans don't want to move to North Korea. Instead they want America to become a carbon-copy of North Korea so they can fuel their power-hungry egos while their slaves will keep them in power by dangling carrots in front of them.
Aww, you poor little baby? What's wrong, did someone piss in your Cheerios this morning? Did someone steal the only girlfriend that you ever had by screwing her while you were jacking off in your mommy's basement? Or is it the fact that someone is telling the truth about your favorite party and you don't want to hear it so you got pissed and throwing a little temper tantrum? Plus what the OP said isn't libel, otherwise we would be seeing lawsuits against everyone in every election cycle. Just because he hasn't literally voted on it doesn't negate what the OP was trying to make, Bernie Sanders has essentially voted for it. The last time this happened was with the Patriot Act and every one of them voted for it with the exception of the RINO Ron Paul.
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 could actually lose to him. The system is broken by definition if it's come to this.
The problem is, "Libertarian" is the label that deadbeats adopt to justify not wanting to pay for their goodies.
People who actually believe in a limited government as opposed to one that's unlimited when it comes to their own personal benefits and non-existent when it comes to anyone else's could be pointing out that that's not true Libertarianism, but they're a voice not heard.
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.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
So many deluded people in our government who don't know the first thing about America.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
The level to which criminal organizations such as the FBI have corrupted our laws and betrayed the entire population reads like something out of a bloody comic book. There's simply nothing we can say or do to them short of the military arresting their families and executing the entire agency for treason (and breaking a staggering number of laws) that can bring America's law enforcement back on the right track.
The foxes have bought out the henhouse manufacturers, and kill or gag any who try to tell the farmers or the chickens.
We still have things that are at least named both those things, as required courses (at least in some areas)
If we start ignoring all of our constitutional rights because of terrorism, then what are we fighting for at that point?
They should just call it the FUSA
So mass surveillance will be performed by the NSA, DHS and now the FBI. Where are those 'small government' morons when you need them?
I think you need to study more American history. And while you're at it, brush up on reading comprehension. I didn't say 'anarchy'. I said 'anarchists'. And the modern American prison is Slavery v2.0 Libertarians like prisons. It's their way of dealing with "deadbeats" and "malcontents". "Work or starve" is their mantra
What's wrong? Can't answer the questions so you throw out more stupid shit? I mean "I didn't say 'anarchy'. I said 'anarchists'?" Don't anarchists practice anarchy? How is limited government anarchy? Isn't anarchy no government at all? If so then how are Libertarians, who believe in limited government, anarchists?
And the modern American prison is Slavery v2.0 Libertarians like prisons. *sic*
How would Libertarians be for the modern prison system if we are supposedly 'anarchists'? Looks like you not only contradicted yourself there, but you also are getting Libertarians confused with the Republicrats and Democans. It's their way of dealing with "deadbeats" and "malcontents", the labels they give to non-violent drug offenders, prostitutes, suspected terrorists even without any evidence, etc. In other words, minorities are the "deadbeats" and "malcontents" in their eyes. All three unconstitutional wars, the war on drugs, terrorism, and poverty are based on racism. So tell me, if the war on poverty were so successful then why have the poverty rates been increasing rather than decreasing?
"Work or starve" is their mantra
really? How did you get that from liberty? Unless you mean that is your attitude for others, slaving over you while you reap all of the benefits. Paranoid much? Guilty conscience perhaps? Have you never heard of food pantries or soup kitchens? How about letting a woman decide to do with her body as she pleases. After all, isn't that what some say about abortion? As such shouldn't a woman be allowed to sell her body for sex if she wants if she is tested regularly? How about ending the drug war by decriminalizing drugs and treating it as a mental health issue instead of a criminal? Those that are arrested for non-violent drug offenses such as selling a plant that is practically harmless and getting a felony on their record will find it much harder to get a job and feed themselves and possibly their families, and black are the ones that have suffered the most from these unconstitutional wars. It should be "Ober or starve" rather than "Work or starve" and the Republicrats and Democans fit that slogan like a glove.
______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself
Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks! The stupid shit is coming from you. You're only looking for a shift in power, not in its dissolution.
if the war on poverty were so successful then why have the poverty rates been increasing rather than decreasing?
Only after your Saint Ronnie took over.
Your shit is fraudulent. Regular trickle down neo-liberal bullshit, another polished turd. Actually it's thinly coded racism. "limited government" just means states' rights. Sorry, your local corruption and bigotry require even more federal oversight, not less. We need to make the country safe and secure for everybody.
Read your constitution and its aristocratic origins. It's just a parliamentary handbook. Your so called "rights" don't exist.
Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks! The stupid shit is coming from you. You're only looking for a shift in power, not in its dissolution.
Ah, in what way? How am I contradicting myself? All I have been practically doing was asking you questions while all you have been doing is attack mindlessly. Perhaps you need to learn how to discuss rather than rabidly regurgitating what others are saying in an attempt to win some imaginary argument.
if the war on poverty were so successful then why have the poverty rates been increasing rather than decreasing?
Only after your Saint Ronnie took over.
This so-called "saint" Ronnie expanded the unconstitutional war on drugs and even the cold war. I thought Libertarians were supposed to be anarchists, isn't that what you said? How would anarchists expand government power?
Your shit is fraudulent.
In what way? Please, enlighten me. While you are at it, please enlighten me as to how your shit is not fraudulent?
Regular trickle down neo-liberal bullshit, another polished turd.
Holy shit, is that all you think of is money? There is more to liberty than just money. The concept of free market is to be equally open for everyone, not just a select few. Right wingers fail to realize that by allowing for businesses to discriminate also gives the suppliers and buyers both the right to discriminate against them, and conservatives hate that. Conservatives secretly do not like the free market system as they only want it to be free for the large corporations and their major stock holders, and even give them welfare. I don't believe in welfare at all but if anyone deserves it more it would be the poor. If it truly worked then it would be set up to help a person to get out of poverty, not keep him or her in poverty by punishing them. If the modern, progressive liberals truly cared about the constitution and helping people get out of poverty then the libertarians would be right there with them, ironing out the details for such a plan then adding it to the constitution. Once it is added then Libertarians would stand by it.
Actually it's thinly coded racism. "limited government" just means states' rights.
You mean like the unconstitutional wars? The only things the war on terror has accomplished is less rights for the individual while taking a mess that has already existed in the middle east and made it worse. It discriminates against Muslims, just listen to Donald Trump, the biggest racist of them all. Hillary and Bernie aren't much better either though. However I do admit they are the lesser of the evils.
Actually it's thinly coded racism. "limited government" just means states' rights.
Really? What makes you think limited government and states rights are the same? All this time I thought states rights gave the states the right to stand up to the federal government. States are already exercising that right, with legalizing a plant the federal government had listed as a schedule 1 drug. How many minorities have lost their rights, property, and livelihoods over selling that plant? By selling crack? The drug czar is very anti-liberty and will do anything to restrict individual liberties, and that in turn has incarcerated quite a few minorities as opposed to whites. Now tell me, if the Democratic Party truly cared then why haven't they decriminalized the possession of drugs so that it is more of a mental health issue rather than a criminal issue? I don't care for heroin one bit but if someone has found a way to use it recreationally and not be completely addicted to it then more power to them. As soon as they become addicted and that addiction is harming them or others then they should have options for treatment, and that does not include prison time with a felony on their record. Limited government means li
Oooh, the little baby is throwing a temper tantrum. Hey everyone, let's laugh at the whiny little baby MachineShittyFailure (621896) Why are you so offended when I attacked both parties? Are you so much of a dumbocrat shill because of all of the welfare programs you are getting for being their whiny little sheep? Man up and grow some balls, you can do it. The other choice is to keep whining about how so unfair life is while staying in your mommy's basement little shit. Either way the choice is yours, but the fact remains is going by voting records the chances of him voting for it are quite high so yeah, h essentially "voted" for it because he follows the caucus line.