US Senate Votes to Allow FBI to Look at Your Web Browsing History Without a Warrant - “Stop having too much fun on the Internet”, the US government proclaims

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...t-your-web-browsing-history-without-a-warrant (a)

The US Senate has voted to give law enforcement agencies access to web browsing data without a warrant, dramatically expanding the government’s surveillance powers in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The power grab was led by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell as part of a reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which gives federal agencies broad domestic surveillance powers. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Steve Daines (R-MT) attempted to remove the expanded powers from the bill with a bipartisan amendment.

But in a shock upset, the privacy-preserving amendment fell short by a single vote after several senators who would have voted “Yes” failed to show up to the session, including Bernie Sanders. 9 Democratic senators also voted “No,” causing the amendment to fall short of the 60-vote threshold it needed to pass.

“The Patriot Act should be repealed in its entirety, set on fire and buried in the ground,” Evan Greer, the deputy director of Fight For The Future, told Motherboard. “It’s one of the worst laws passed in the last century, and there is zero evidence that the mass surveillance programs it enables have ever saved a single human life.”

The vote comes at a time when internet usage has skyrocketed, with tens of millions of Americans quarantined at home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Privacy advocates have warned for over a decade that allowing warrantless access to web search queries and browsing history allows law enforcement to easily crack down on activists, labor organizers, or anyone else the government deems a threat.

“Today the Senate made clear that the purpose of the PATRIOT Act is to spy on Americans, no warrants or due process necessary,” Dayton Young, director of product at Fight For the Future, told Motherboard. “Any lawmaker who votes to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act is voting against our constitutionally-protected freedoms, and there’s nothing patriotic about that.”

- End of Article -
This is some of the worst news I've heard today. Absolutely no one wants a fed to look through their computer, not a single person. Such a fucking mess.
 
Wait I am confused, I thought the guys voting YES are the ones trying to remove the ability for gubmint to spy on people?

You think correctly. We initially thought the guys voting YES were the people who said "let the FBI spy."

I checked the actual roll call and it says that it was for the amendment, which was to remove those powers.
 
Boy I hope the FBI doesn't see this post where I say Every member of Congress should be tarred and feathered because half of them are commies who want to bring back the Soviet Union and the other half are a bunch of AIPAC whores who want to turn the United States of America into a colony of the Nation of Israel. The also pretend to bicker about immigration and gun control even though they'll come together with an amazing sense of bipartizanship every time a piece of legislation crosses their desks to destroy our civil liberties. Every one of these things are treasonous whores. Not people, things. Things that happen to be whores who hate the American people. Oh and fuck the Federal Bureau of Investigation and every member of the Department of Justice. Traitors one and all, every single one of you.
 
In that roll call:

"YEA" means "yes to remove the FBI's ability to surveil without a warrant."

"NAY" means "no, keep it in."

They needed 60 YEAs to issue the amendment that would kill the FBI's surveillance powers. They were one (1) short.


Well they've been doing it for private citizens trying to blackmail and force prostitution so I'm not surprised it stayed.
 
So Bernie Sanders being a perpetual fuck up allowed it to pass. Thanks.

The amendment allows the doj to look at your search terms if you’re under investigation, but not the “content” of your searches. Whatever that means. I imagine they already do it and just decided to make it legal.
It means they can see that you searched for "how to get away with murder" and use that as evidence against you without being able to see that you were actually just looking up info on that garbage tv show by that name.
 
get Democrats who will do the same thing

The fact anyone still thinks who we vote for means a damn just shows how autistic the country is. The exact same agendas happen no matter who we vote for. It's all just smoke and mirrors to make peasants feel like the feudal lords give a damn about their opinions.
 
i for one am not shocked at the creator of this bill.
dd.PNG
 
To explain what happened here:

Democrat Jerry Nadler (remember that guy during impeachment?) submitted an extension of 2015's USA FREEDOM, which in and of itself was an extension of the infamous Patriot Act.

In response, Ron Wyden-D issued amendment 1583 to attempt to erase the aspects of USA PATRIOT/FREEDOM that allow search history to be searched without a warrant.

Any YEA vote on that would erase the FBI's ability to surveil search data without a warrant. This is the Anti-FBI vote. It needed 60 votes to pass, presumably because this is an amendment to an existing law.

Any NAY vote would let them keep those powers as given in USA PATRIOT/FREEDOM. This is the pro-FBI vote, and the good guys in this scenario.

The YEAs lost by one vote.
 
Surely you can understand this basic calculus without trying to inject more of your TDS into this.
I don't believe I have TDS. You'd be understandably angry that your Internet freedom may be compromised.

Bernie could've saved this by voting yes, but instead he fence sat on his vote.

Does he know young people use the internet too? His fanbase?
 
The fact anyone still thinks who we vote for means a damn just shows how autistic the country is. The exact same agendas happen no matter who we vote for. It's all just smoke and mirrors to make peasants feel like the feudal lords give a damn about their opinions.
[Insert 7 paragraph reply about "while both sides are bad one party is slightly worse so you should for my candidate next election" here]
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong but wouldn't you need a warrant to access the computer anyway?
Browser stores data somewhere on a server in freedom loving caifornia. California laws are notoriously awful about privacy. For instance, all those DNA Ancestry tests have their data stored in California, who has passed a law allowing the police to use their database to match for samples. Awesome right? Because it's not like there is something written in the constitution about this.


Anyways, your browser data gets sold to companies. So it's all out there, for a price. Now the government just doesnt have to pay. And almost all of these companies will comply without fighting it. Only real case I can remember otherwise was Apple refusing to give the gov backdoor access to an iPhone used by a shooter.

Complete speculation here, but given the way the government is run, I dont see them wasting man hours to take an in depth look at someone completely randomly. I know the Snowden horror stories might say otherwise, but they still only really glazed the surface of he online presence. Think webcams and instant messages. Browser history seems like it is another layer deep, and really ambiguous at that, since a lot of people ask Google a lot of innocent questions that might act as a red flag for some shitty algorithm.

Unfortunately giving the government lawful access to this allows that speculation to become a basis for an entire investigation. Which means you're SOL if you didnt want the government to know you enjoy tranny scat porn. Worse yet, they might find you interesting enough to look in depth at your history.

But given what I know about government monotony, it really wouldnt make sense to give anything more than a cursory glance at first, before the actual process of picking apart each and every detail and documenting it part occurs.


So maybe some sort of algorithm flags a person for extremist content, and then they have an intern take a quick peek on the surface to see if he should send it to someone with a yearly salary.

If what I read is correct, this bill basically bypasses a large part of the judicial process. Your browser history is just that - yours. It pertains to you and only you. It should be treated like finger prints or DNA samples. Just because you leave them everywhere, it does not make it right for the government to secretly collect all our our fingerprints and put them into a database. That shit can only be forced on you if you actually commit a crime or the judge signs off on it pretrial. But the important part here is that there is a judicial process to it, as well as the fact that this shit is kept above the table.

This browser crap is below table. We will never know just how in depth they look and what they truly have unfettered access to. And that's the different between fingerprints and DNA - and what makes this so awful. We know the rules with that shit - we know how it works and understand the process. It can be admitted in court.

But this is a covert program that is kept under wraps. They can bring in shit as evidence, and any jury that may or may not preside over this evidence doesnt understand the process, nor if it even is credible. They have to take the government's word for it.

Imagine a movement like occupy wall street.... it is successful and seriously shaking up the order of things. We know for a fact that government agents went into the movement and sabotaged it from the inside. This is just another tool for that sort of thing. What happens when a leaker or whistleblower is going to let out some big scandal? Will they suddenly find CP in their history?

The worst part about this is not the ruling. While that is fucking shameful and infuriating, the part that gets me is a point someone already made -- that we are fucking helpless. That even if we elect a Dem over a Republican or vice versa, they will just hand it off and continue to erode at our freedoms. It is the feeling that we cannot do anything about this. Vote you say? That would work if this country had more than 2 parties in the running.

I had this thought earlier today, thinking about the venom and hate between the two parties. It would not be untrue to say that two parties has been for the most part what has kept this country so stable, even in times of turmoil. If you think about all the governments that have toppled, the tyrants rising to power, you will have a chunk of the populace that latches onto a new party, one that seems better than the old guard. Think Nazis, USSR.

The passing of the torch back and forth, each with an agenda to maintain certain common goals, while knowingly sabotaging the ability for organic movements to find a place in power, is a brilliant strategy. This guarantees each party gets a turn at running every 8 years or so, and if you widen the playing field, you suddenly dont have a 50 percent chance of winning anymore. It's 33, and that's a big slice of the pizza that this third wildcard suddenly gains. And worse yet, they aren't in on the gameplan.

Feels like the climate is right for a new party to show up. But despite what it may be advertised as, dont expect it to be truly organic. The way to bridge this divide in the country (while still remaining in charge) is to just create that third party yourself, with people who already know the rules of the game.

For all the shit we give her, I feel like Obama and Hillary really kept their base in line (compared to now, although they were still rabid). But now the media is firing on all cylinders against Trump, in a way that Bush wasn't criticized, even post-9/11. All the media wasn't blaming Bush for those deaths. but they are with Trump.

I suspect that upon her defeat and retirement from yet another presidential race, she said fuck it and let the dogs off their leashes. Because shes a vindictive little cunt. That and the media had generated so many clicks during their "pied piper" narrative. they sort of let it snowball into Trump news 24/7.

But I think it has gotten out of hand, and they know it. Or at least they will once Trump gets another 4 years. They cant resist those clicks, so they make every story about Trump, and it drives a larger wedge between the two parties.

The dems are stubborn though. Maybe by 2024 they will realize that we are nearing a point of extreme tension and hostilities, and I imagine a boiling point over the course of the next 4 years. At that point I suspect they will anoint a third party into the limelight, an escape for those sick of dem/Republican shit flinging.

Feels like they already tried this a bit with Jill Stein. They have humored Bernie by testing the waters for a socialist movement. Trump was a populist who was never expected to make it out of the primary.

Note that most of my interpretations are based on what these politicians say they support, not necessarily as they vote.

Im an old school traditionalist, but even I think that we need to change this process. Not sure why we dont grow up like every other first world nation and have a fuckton of parties who get all the benefits of the the two main ones.

Because this isnt democracy. It is a game of catch between Democrats and Republicans. And every throw is getting more vicious.


Oh my God I am so sorry I wrote so much I'm baked
 
Last edited:
Back