Replies: 26
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [2695]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3414
Joined: 7/3/07
|
|
|
|
All-In [46887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30773
Joined: 8/11/15
|
The first thing they should do is see what
May 15, 2020, 10:28 AM
|
|
gay pron Lindsey Graham watches
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2695]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3414
Joined: 7/3/07
|
....and no I don't want to "just a get a VPN"!!!!***
May 15, 2020, 10:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97880]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64979
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Ok, whatever. Vote against your incumbent if he voted yea
May 15, 2020, 10:39 AM
|
|
I have that several times now.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2695]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3414
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Look pal, I meant principle, not principal***
May 15, 2020, 10:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97880]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64979
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Get a VPN
May 15, 2020, 10:38 AM
|
|
Based in a foreign country and/or use Tor.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30773
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Or have a government that doesn't
May 15, 2020, 10:41 AM
|
|
spy on it's own people with both parties pushing it.
Repeal the Patriot Act.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97880]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64979
Joined: 7/13/02
|
All I can do is vote.
May 15, 2020, 10:48 AM
|
|
America would be better served if every single voter voted against an incumbent. And voted for a random person. Uncontested primaries should be illegal. I'm stuck with Trump or Biden for Pres. Was stuck with Lindsey Graham last time around and wrote in Donald Duck.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
Allow me to shine my ignorance
May 15, 2020, 10:39 AM
|
|
Because it’s a reauthorization, the house doesn’t have to vote on it too?
Even with amendments?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7241]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9484
Joined: 12/18/13
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I’d say this may be the one time I’ve ever
May 15, 2020, 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30773
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Evenly split even though Mitch waited until Bernie
May 15, 2020, 12:09 PM
|
|
was away to take the vote
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38412
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Agreed. This is bipartisan stupidity.
May 15, 2020, 10:51 AM
|
|
And boy, do both parties come together when it comes to infringing on our privacy.
But I mean, I don't look up anything bad on my browser... yeah. Ahem.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
OH NO!
May 15, 2020, 10:58 AM
|
|
They'll find out I'm posting on Tigernet and I'm a Clemson graduate. Will they use that to unmask my name when I order Mercedes Benz OEM parts from Germany to restore my 35 yr/old classic w126?
Can I get a jail cell next to Flynn?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7241]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9484
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: OH NO!
May 15, 2020, 11:04 AM
|
|
The deep state O-cinnabun-a FBI may be more lenient if you can finally hand over the pee pee tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
How do you know about my P P tapes?
May 15, 2020, 11:20 AM
|
|
No, that's not your mom, she looks a lot like her but it is not her, trust me.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37222
Joined: 11/22/03
|
The headline is either misleading, confusing, or both...
May 15, 2020, 11:12 AM
|
|
I think they were voting on reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Is that correct?
Is the issue of getting browser data without a warrant a proposed change or part of the existing Patriot Act that is being reauthorized? I'm pretty sure that was already in the Patriot Act and the amendment to limit that power in the PA was rejected.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Already there
May 15, 2020, 11:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38412
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yeah, good luck ever writing ole Lindsey and expecting...
May 15, 2020, 11:52 PM
|
|
A legitimate response. He'll form letter you out the door.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2695]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3414
Joined: 7/3/07
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
you better get to Nancy to kibash it***
May 15, 2020, 11:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40966]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42971
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to
May 15, 2020, 11:44 AM
|
|
worry about. Right?
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: FBI can search your browser....without a warrant!!!
May 15, 2020, 5:47 PM
|
|
It won't stand to the first court challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Ambivalent at this point. Need to hear tnetters on both side
May 15, 2020, 10:06 PM
|
|
On one hand, anyone should know that there is no presumption of privacy in an internet search. Anybody knows the tech companies use the histories, even sell the dang things. ["We collect only aggregate data,". Uh huh.] We already know that anyone, police or otherwise, can follow you around in public places, photo you, whatever. They can watch to see what you buy from the newsstand, check out at the library. They can dig through your trash. If a delivery company leaves a package on your porch, my guess is that they can look at it. Probably can't pick it up (might be a search). Public is public. The internet is public. Get over it.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see warrants required. I am just seeing the other side of it here. What is the other side?
I will be an easy persuade. You guys have seen my comments here recently upholding the idea that the police need to get out of the business of targeting innocent people, engaging them to commit a crime they would otherwise have not committed. Seriously, that's USSR and China type stuff. [I know, that was racist.] First know you have a crime - not suspect, know - then go after a person for that crime, not something barely tangent. Start with crimes, follow those to people. Leave everyone else, everyone, the hell alone.
So, I will be an easy sell. To me, we all the know internet use is out there in public, so no one can presume it to be private. What's the other side?
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2695]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3414
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: Ambivalent at this point. Need to hear tnetters on both side
May 16, 2020, 3:23 AM
|
|
For me it comes down to intellectual freedom and state scrutiny of our lives. It is naive and dangerous to assume government will always be operated by the best, nicest people with the best, nicest intentions. Power of technology and potential for abuse is immense. We need to get out of the overly trusting mindset and should just assume that we are on Orwell’s doorstep. I realize it is difficult to grasp and seems a bit chicken little, but we are already headed down that path. It is time to push back. And if one of you fracks reading this is working the domestic surveillance desk in Langley or Quantico, you already know where to find me, lol.
This apiece in the Harvard Law Review is very thorough. It’s 32 pages, lol, so will take awhile to digest.
“First, surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties. With respect to civil liberties, consider surveillance of people when they are thinking, reading, and communicating with others in order to make up their minds about political and social issues. Such intellectual surveillance is especially dangerous because it can cause people not to experiment with new, controversial, or deviant ideas. To protect our intellectual freedom to think without state over-sight or interference, we need what I have elsewhere called “intellectual privacy.”? A second special harm that surveillance poses is its effect on the power dynamic between the watcher and the watched. This disparity creates the risk of a variety of harms, such as discrimination, coercion, and the threat of selective enforcement, where critics of the government can be prosecuted or blackmailed for wrongdoing unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance.”
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_richards.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
You are much more cautious that I am in your
May 16, 2020, 11:30 AM
|
|
1st paragraph. I do not merely assume that nice people of good intent may not always be in positions of power; I am already aware that ill motivated autocrats are in positions of power. I get misty eyed at times in some patriotic displays, but it is for the ideal and for what once existed, and for those who risked all to provide it, not for what is today. By a long shot. I am with you 100% on all that.
If it seems like, feels like, the govn is growing more menacing while the rhetoric becomes more benevolent, I don't think that is just a feeling. Government is indeed growing to the point where it is its own self sustaining entity, determining its own direction and goals rather than protecting the right of the citizens to determine those things.
The engine of this, I believe, is our growing polarization, because extremes of left and right do not exist on the opposite ends of a line, but at the top of a circle. The more extreme the views, the more closely their ideals and methods reflect each other, separated only by terminology. China, for instance, shifted from ultra left (pure communism) to ultra right (autocratic capitalism) almost overnight, with no one really noticing. They didn't have to travel to the other end of an ideological line, they merely took one step over the meeting line of the circle. Authoritarianism is the common value of either extreme.
And here we are, arguing with each other about which autocrat should supplant which. Put Trump, Pelosi, Obama, McConnell and Schumer in the same bag, and only an ideologue believes one is more or less autocratic than the others. The danger is not them, but us, because we don't really want individual power returned to us. We want them to fix things. Everything.
That is a lot of words simply to say I am on that page with you. I will look at your link. I would love to see solid reasoning to show why internet searches can't be read. Right now it seems to be almost like saying they can't listen to your ham radio talk. But I do hope a reason can be shown.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2695]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3414
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: You are much more cautious that I am in your
May 17, 2020, 12:38 PM
|
|
Well, the solid reasoning you are asking was figured out in Katz vs. United States, in the late 1960s. In that case, the FBI put a mic on top of a couple of public phone booths and recorded Mr. Katz talking to various people.
This case was primarily about technology being used to help a law enforcement agent circumvent our Fourth Amendment rights. As crazy as it sounds, phone booths were considered high tech back then.
In that case, the Supreme Court concluded that under the Fourth Amendment Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy that supersedes the FBI's legal authorities.
You can hear the decision being deliberated on oyez.org, and these points ring true today for domesetic surveillance of our computers. When we use our phone to search for information, browse websites, etc, we have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35
And there is a good piece about how the case law has evolved since Katz and why there are tests that can applied to any situation involving new technology.
https://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-66/issue-3/articles/hiding-plain-fourth-amendment-government-surveillance-public.html
|
|
|
|
Replies: 26
| visibility 1
|
|
|