Senate vote allows FBI access to your browsing history without a warrant

Oh, I'm assuming your not even looking at the numbers that were just posted since they clearly show no significant difference in lockdown versus no lockdown. So, if you would like to post the numbers you're referring to or a link to where you're getting your information, feel free.
I'm looking at your number. Sweden's death rate is 6.7 times higher than Finland's. But your numbers are wrong anyway. Death rate is # of deaths/ # of infections. So using that definition Sweden's death rate is 12 deaths / 100 infections and Finland's is 4 death/ 100 infections. So using these numbers you can see the Sweden is doing 3 times worse as compared to Finland.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squid Surprise

ZedRM

Posts: 342   +180
It's humorous that some privacy advocates expect internet anonymity and privacy in the 21st century.

The PATRIOT Act was going to happen one way or the other, 9/11 was just an early catalyst.

I'd rather "officially" agree that my online privacy is non-existent, and give authorities sanctioned tools that they need to perform surveillance on high value targets, than block this act, have the surveillance happen anyways. Because in reality, there is no alternative.

The expectation of online privacy is a fantasy that some still attempt to cling to.
I read this comment and it saddened me. You are part of the problem, not the solution. The perspective you have offered is without understanding, without merit and is a perfect example of why it is so important to remember the lessons of World War 2.
 

Hexic

Posts: 723   +701
TechSpot Elite
Aww, that was as misguided as it was adorable. We create technology to make our lives easier and/or better. Technology is meant to serves us, not to be used to dominate the masses. If you believe otherwise, you really need to get a clue and leave the goose-stepping in the past were it belongs.
Sure thing, I’ll start waiting for the end of the mass surveillance then. Shall we begin holding our breath now, or wait until the idealism fairies overthrow every first world government’s anti-terrorism program themselves?

You can wish in one hand and... You know how the phrase goes.
 

Aaron Jones

Posts: 26   +12
No.... they NEVER required a warrant... the amendment was to make them require it... and it was defeated... please try and read :)
No. Read the article again. A new addition to the act grants them warrantless access; a vote to include a change requiring a warrant fell short by one vote. Ergo, if passed and signed into law now, NOW they won't need a warrant.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 3,220   +2,104
No. Read the article again. A new addition to the act grants them warrantless access; a vote to include a change requiring a warrant fell short by one vote. Ergo, if passed and signed into law now, NOW they won't need a warrant.
My fault.... read... and COMPREHEND please...

_____

The Patriot act (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism act) is a controversial piece of legislation that was made into law following the September 11 attacks. It gives law enforcement extra powers of surveillance, including record and private property searchers without notifying the individuals.

As reported by The Register, an addition to the Patriot Act, which is due to be renewed this week, would allow agencies to collect people’s browsing histories without requiring a warrant.
____

Note the line “due to be renewed this week”.... that means it’s already in effect....and has been for 20 years
 

Aaron Jones

Posts: 26   +12
My fault.... read... and COMPREHEND please...

_____

The Patriot act (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism act) is a controversial piece of legislation that was made into law following the September 11 attacks. It gives law enforcement extra powers of surveillance, including record and private property searchers without notifying the individuals.

As reported by The Register, an addition to the Patriot Act, which is due to be renewed this week, would allow agencies to collect people’s browsing histories without requiring a warrant.
____

Note the line “due to be renewed this week”.... that means it’s already in effect....and has been for 20 years
Yes, and note the very line you quoted;

an addition to the Patriot Act, which is due to be renewed this week, would allow law enforcement to collect people’s browsing histories without a warrant
That's future tense. You are the one lacking comprehension.
 

Aaron Jones

Posts: 26   +12
Yes, the law has been in effect for (almost) 20 years. I'm not disputing that. That doesn't change the fact that these planned warrantless additions, made by Sen. Mitch McConnell (EDIT: Spelling) within the last 3 months, are as yet not law.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. They needed a warrant for the last 2 decades. Now they won't.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 3,220   +2,104
Yes, the law has been in effect for (almost) 20 years. I'm not disputing that. That doesn't change the fact that these planned warrantless additions, made by Sen. Mitch McConnell (EDIT: Spelling) within the last 3 months, are as yet not law.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. They needed a warrant for the last 2 decades. Now they won't.

I want you to read that and then apologize.... although I suspect you’ll just stop posting....
 

Aaron Jones

Posts: 26   +12
There's no need for me to read it, because I already did, specifically the section "Going backwards":

A aforementioned planned addition to the PATRIOT Act, drafted by Senate leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), explicitly allows for the collection of search and browsing data in section 215 of the law. It doesn’t require probable cause, meaning that in reality, the FBI will be able to go to ISPs and demand web-surfing histories on individuals without requiring to produce any evidence of wrongdoing.
But yes, I am going to stop posting now, because you're just not getting it...
 

Aaron Jones

Posts: 26   +12
Okay, I started there.

Those opposing the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given to law enforcement to search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's consent or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records.
Nowhere does that mention web browsing or search history.

Then onto the actual law, more specifically, the to-be-amended Section 215:

SEC. 215: ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. (Page 37)

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 17 of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

SEC. 501: ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS:

(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

(a)(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall:
(a)(2)(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 1233312 (or a successor order); and
(a)(2)(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(b) Each application under this section
(b)(1) shall be made to:
(b)(1)(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
(b)(1)(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
(b)(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
(c)(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
Note that this only:

1) Mentions "tangible things" (which web browsing and search history are not)
2) Requires a court order (granted, the FISA court is just a rubber-stamp factory, but still ...)

Similarly, Section 216 covers modifications to the authorization and use of pen registers and trap & trace devices, but that only covers telephone calls.

Similarly, from the bottom of the introduction of that very Wikipedia article:

On May 13, 2020, the Senate voted to give law enforcement agencies (FBI and CIA) the power to look into US citizens' browser history without a warrant.
... and from the third citation for that sentence:

An attempt to block an extraordinary expansion of federal surveillance failed in the U.S. Senate by one vote on Wednesday, enabling the Justice Department to collect personal data such as browser history without a warrant. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's amendment to the Patriot Act expansion, now unchallenged, limits attorneys' ability to question the FBI's reasoning for surveillance.
... and following that link:

Mitch McConnell Moves to Expand Bill Barr’s Surveillance Powers

Days after the Justice Department controversially dropped charges against Mike Flynn, Senate GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is set to expand a highly politicized Justice Department’s surveillance authority during a vote this week to renew the 2001 PATRIOT Act.

Under cover of redressing what President Donald Trump and his allies call the FBI’s “witch hunt” over collusion with the Kremlin, McConnell, via an amendment to the PATRIOT Act, will expressly permit the FBI to warrantlessly collect records on Americans’ web browsing and search histories.


Are you getting it yet? I'm done. Good day.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,464   +1,436
TechSpot Elite
Welcome to Techspot, where the users are trolls and the admins&moderators play favoritism and delete comments they "think" are "ad hominem"...(wait for it.... aannnnnddd pooof!)
All I can comment on is the posts I know were pulled because my quoted replies are then also pulled, and every single one of those was an ad hominem. So TS has a 100% positive record on the data I have personally experienced.
 

Dan Maresca

Posts: 7   +4
Yes but if you use incognito, so what. Besides unless you're hiding something dangerous or illegal, don't care.
 

ZedRM

Posts: 342   +180
All I can comment on is the posts I know were pulled because my quoted replies are then also pulled, and every single one of those was an ad hominem. So TS has a 100% positive record on the data I have personally experienced.
My experiences have been otherwise. Please review the following for context.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,464   +1,436
TechSpot Elite
My experiences have been otherwise. Please review the following for context.
I'm well aware of what an ad hom is and can confirm that all pulled posts that I'm directly aware of have been due to ad hom comments, as opposed to on-topic comments.
 

SolarisGuru

Posts: 92   +123
All I can comment on is the posts I know were pulled because my quoted replies are then also pulled, and every single one of those was an ad hominem. So TS has a 100% positive record on the data I have personally experienced.
I had one of my posts removed the other day for “trolling” and it certainly was not. It was a comment about Intel and it apparently hit someone in the feels if you know what I mean. I fully suspect the mod is running an Intel chip in his rig right now and took it personal.

It seems to me the TS mods are getting a lot more aggressive. The encounter I had the other day has reduced my activity on the site to the point I’ve barely visited this week.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ZedRM