Slashdot Mirror


Major US Tech Firms Press Congress For Internet Surveillance Reforms (reuters.com)

Dustin Volz, reporting for Reuters: Facebook, Amazon and more than two dozen other U.S. technology companies pressed Congress on Friday to make changes to a broad internet surveillance law, saying they were necessary to improve privacy protections and increase government transparency. The request marks the first significant public effort by Silicon Valley to wade into what is expected to be a contentious debate later the year over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, parts of which will expire on Dec. 31 unless Congress reauthorizes them. Of particular concern to the technology industry and privacy advocates is Section 702, which allows U.S. intelligence agencies to vacuum up vast amounts of communications from foreigners but also incidentally collects some data belonging to Americans that can be searched by analysts without a warrant.

38 comments

  1. No NOT just "incidentally" by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most of the lefty press is doing its hardest to not report on this week's news that the FISA court issued a scathing rebuke of the Obama administration for a protracted, sustained, deliberate embrace of purposeful 4th amendment violations of untold thousands of US citizens, and the FBI's dissemination of NSA-collected information on these people, without legal cover from a court, to "third parties." The courts had told the Obama administration specifically what they needed to change in order to become constitutionally compliant, and the Obama administration completely blew them off. A lot of this intersects with the scope of special counsel Mueller's authority in his current look-around, so hopefully he'll follow the trail down those "third party" rabbit holes and find out who was putting that huge pile of data to work, how, and to what end and at whose request.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you hiding? Perhaps we need to have your communications monitored. Most normal people really wouldn't give a fuck.

    2. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by spacepimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To those of you foolish enough to believe that US citizen surveillance via FBI/CIA/NSA is a partisan issue; please stop dumbing down the conversation. If you think that the only enemy is the other party and that your party is the steward of rights and liberties, then you haven't paid attention. Both parties have no problem with doubling down on these abuses.

    3. Re: No NOT just "incidentally" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah man I ain't want some fucking extremist fucking with me because some fucking liberal LGBT Necrophilic CEO want to get fucked in an orgy of dead bodies and decided that we shouldn't listen on their fucking little secrets.

      What the fuck did I just say? Who cares....

    4. Re: No NOT just "incidentally" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I understand ... there are days that I just feel like saying fuck in every alternate word too. ...wait... I don't. Fuck you.

    5. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Informative

      To those of you foolish enough to believe that US citizen surveillance via FBI/CIA/NSA is a partisan issue; please stop dumbing down the conversation. If you think that the only enemy is the other party and that your party is the steward of rights and liberties, then you haven't paid attention. Both parties have no problem with doubling down on these abuses.

      It's not a partisan issue, but that's not the point. The point Scentcone is trying to make is that the press is trying to quash a story that would be front page news for weeks if it happened under a Republican administration.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    6. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thankfully not everyone is as concerned with their 4th Amendment rights as little as you.

    7. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Hey, look! Somebody gets it! Thanks for not being one of these people who's pretending they don't understand that basic fact. That IS the point.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      So, your request is: "If you're foolish, shut up," and you expect that making such a request will be successful?

      Have you ever considered something like the following?
      "To those of you insightful enough to understand that US citizen surveillance via FBI/CIA/NSA is a partisan issue; please add your voice to our cacophony. We have gregarious souls. Don't leave us frozen out by your silence. We can't properly refute your arguments if we don't know what they are."

    9. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The point Scentcone is trying to make is that the press is trying to quash a story that would be front page news for weeks if it happened under a Republican administration.

      And it would be on the front page too if it weren't for the fact that the current president is just so goddamn newsworthy while he sells the White House silverware to his favorite Russian fence.

      That, and the fact that the same surveillance of US citizens that was going on during Obama is still fucking going on.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I liked your link to part where he's selling things to the Russians. It was great how it compared the lack of any evidence of that to examples like Hillary Clinton ushering through a deal highly beneficial to Russian government and business interests, followed immediately by one of the banks involved writing her husband a half million dollar check for "speaking fees."

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    11. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The evil cunt was not elected. You can stop talking about her now. She is irrelevant.

      We, the people, chose incompetent over evil. Lets try and focus on the present/future.

    12. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Don't both be dicks, front page news of mains stream media owned by communist corporations, what there are none, all those major media corporations are pretty much down right fascist in their political outlook and only report what is called 'left wing' social justice issues as distraction needed to break up labour for exploitation. Uncle Tom Obama was far right, of a bankster appointed far right administration, fuck Obama was further right than Ronny Raygun. What far right main stream media is trying to hide is the corporate democrats and the corporate republicans are exactly the same kind of people, taking the same money and pushing the same corporate causes, just using and abusing empty bullshit social justice issues.

      What these corporations want is the right to invade everyone's privacy as much as possible and the legal protection to psychologically manipulate people regardless of the harm caused, so that the corporations can make them do what ever the corporations demand that they do. Now if the government wants that information and access, than those fucking piece of shit corporations do not want government to do it, they want the government to pay the corporations to do it. Those corporations are truly worthless pieces of shit.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about her. We're talking about people like the GP who have their hypocrisy so proudly on display. WORSE than hypocrisy, because they're faking outrage over fiction, while always having been careful to pretend their preferred candidate never did the things they actually got caught doing.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:No NOT just "incidentally" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, definitely sounds like some corporate whitwash going on. These companies only care that people are aware of government surveillance and that is reducing the effectiveness of their corporate surveillance.

  2. Tech Companies = Bell Ends by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    They're all already in bed with the intelligence agencies. Why do they continue to put on this BS trick and pony show where they pretend to care about our privacy?

    1. Re:Tech Companies = Bell Ends by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      They will care about our privacy if we care about our privacy. If we don't, then they won't.

    2. Re: Tech Companies = Bell Ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I don't.... I care about my freedom....and gun rights... I don't care about privacy... that's for closet LGBTs.

    3. Re: Tech Companies = Bell Ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't have one without the others.

  3. Dear Congress. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Spying is our Job, Damnit!"
    -Sincerely, Silicon Valley.

    This could be a political cartoon. CDN's and Large Advertising networks Lobbying congress to not do their own spying so they can sell the information to the government themselves. It's good American business.

    Right up until the American Citizenry decide enough is enough.

  4. A tale of humor, irony, and revenue. by geekmux · · Score: 2

    So, let me get this straight.

    Facebook, who enjoys pimping out the largest human database on the planet, and Amazon, who also holds one of the largest databases of human behavior as well as manufacturing an entire line of voice-enabled-always-listening devices sitting deep in people's homes...

    ...are the organizations arguing against mass surveillance?

    I can't tell if this is some kind of sick joke, twisted irony, or if they're just pissed that someone might be muscling in on their revenue streams.

    1. Re:A tale of humor, irony, and revenue. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      I can't tell if this is some kind of sick joke, twisted irony, or if they're just pissed that someone might be muscling in on their revenue streams.

      The difference is using Facebook or Amazon is voluntary. Try opting out of the government.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:A tale of humor, irony, and revenue. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      Try opting out of THE INTERNET

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    3. Re:A tale of humor, irony, and revenue. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if this is some kind of sick joke, twisted irony, or if they're just pissed that someone might be muscling in on their revenue streams.

      The difference is using Facebook or Amazon is voluntary. Try opting out of the government.

      At this point opting out of anything the masses have deemed normal behavior will only make you an outlier, which will likely garner you even more scrutiny, from both society and the government.

      If a person under 20 tried to survive and thrive today without using any social media, they would be treated as if they had leprosy.

    4. Re:A tale of humor, irony, and revenue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they're against is having to index their data in such a way that they can respond on-demand to TLA demands for information "relating to $PERSON_OF_INTEREST". Because that's a lot of work, which has no plausible payoff for them.

      They're clearly not against collecting data, but they're concerned about the sheer work involved in providing it to anyone else.

  5. The very ones that are complicit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The very ones that are complicit!

  6. Innocent before proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who equates "search without warrant" and/or "mass surveillance" with "guilty before proven innocent", the exact opposite of what happens in a free country? It seems blindingly obvious to me. Am I off base here?

    1. Re: Innocent before proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strike three yourrrr outtttttttt.

      "What ump? That was a ball you bafoon"

      Ump: your outttttttttta here!!!!!

      Moral: never argue with those in power. xD

      Nah just kidding always keep em on their toes.

    2. Re: Innocent before proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry I forgot it is you'reeeeeeee

      Haven't
      Had
      Coffee
      In 12
      Hours.

    3. Re:Innocent before proven guilty by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Probably. Requiring a warrant is done for the purposes of oversight. That is, at least two people have to agree that you need to be searched rather than one person deciding it unilaterally.

      It just gives you (and everyone else) a bit of peace of mind in the guarantee that some jerk cop can't come ransack your house on a whim -- he has to talk to a judge first (who we presume to be wiser and more thoughtful when considering the justifying evidence presented.)

      It doesn't change your guilt or innocence (or your presumption of such under the law) either way.

  7. Isn't this bizarre in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like hey, since we're being surveilled anyway, let's set up some house rules.

  8. A river of crocodile tears. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most *normal* people are fucking retarded. Americans have forgotten that privacy is another word for liberty. Our government knows this.

    Tech companies don't want privacy, they just want less competition, and a market to sell the data to the government. Government wants it too. Then there are NO constitutional protections, no pesky warrants, no need for secret courts, bigger budgets, less transparency, no oversight, and even more data. All packaged and legal, direct from the companies everybody already loves. It's perfect.

    Yesterday I read about a DMV somewhere that was leasing their own in-house facial recog system to enforcement and got hung up for it... cuz government spying. I understand FB has has pretty good recog for YEARS, and has spent quite a while perfecting the sale of data. Looks like a market just opened up.

    We already accept these very companies are selling our demographic and interest info, but what do you think your dozen or so (aliases) screen-names are worth to enforcement? How about a list of your closest (known associates) friends? Political affiliation? How about a list of every gun owner within 2 blocks of $ADDRESS, separated by income, skin color, employment status, and real time location history.... instantly? You know, for the children.

    This data is already on the shelves folks, and these companies are using our outrage at government spying to build a market for it.

    Facebook and Amazon are asking for privacy? Like as in less spying? It must be fucking opposite day.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    1. Re:A river of crocodile tears. by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Facebook and Amazon are asking for privacy? Like as in less spying? It must be fucking opposite day.

      No, they're asking for privacy as in "we want all the data and nobody else should have it." With a touch of "we don't want to waste our time and money feeding our hard-earned data to the government."

      This is hardly a new sentiment, and its one the government should understand well -- they've always wanted to know everything about you while letting you know as little as possible about them. Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc are all in a position where they actually do know pretty much everything about you.. but it cost them a lot to collect that information and they don't particular want to see that just being given up for free.

      If the government came at them with $100mill/yr contracts rather than legislation, we would barely hear a whisper of this (until someone notices a few hundred million tagged for "mass surveillance" in the budget of course.. but it wouldn't be the companies in question making the stink.)

  9. Off Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure it's hypocritical.

    However these companies don't want the competition. They also don't want the legal liabilities, and the marketing drag, that comes with the government wanting that sweet corporate data. Better for them all around if the government simply asks for less data.

    1. Re:Off Base by Agripa · · Score: 1

      It also makes them look bad to their customers whether they are secretly cooperating or not. As it is, all data handed over to third parties including Google and Facebook just ends up being searched and retained by the government en mass.

  10. Government of, by, and for the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, ignore the people. Let's have the companies and government duke it out over what's best for us.

  11. Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? Surveillance giants Amazon, FB, etc., are complaining about surveillance? How about the public have free continuous access to all the aggregatedâ surveillance data available for the surveillance giants' executives? Wouldn't that be fair and transparent?