Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling.
Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surveillance on American citizens, which of course is not expected to pass.
McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.
To your point, I just visited the NYTimes.com, and no mention of this very important story on the front page. Clicked on "Politics" and "U.S.", and I still cannot find a single mention of this story. A complete failure.
Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling.
I often encourage (and practice myself) looking for a tip email address to your favorite outlets and sending them...well a tip when there’s a story going on they haven’t yet reported, but one feels especially is need of wider dissemination.
What media do you think should cover this? FOX News? CNN? MSNBC? Do you think Rachel Maddow should report on this? Who is going to report on this kind of stuff?
I don't get the hostility towards requiring a warrant to spy on election candidates. Even if the goal is similar protections for everybody, it's obvious that measures designed to prevent parties from abusing the surveillance apparatus for political ends is a good thing. It's difficult to imagine a better tool for ensuring one side gets muck raked harder than the other.
As a Bernie supporter, I'm disappointed by his lack of a YES vote. We at least deserve a statement. I'm going to suggest a potential explanation, but I'm still disappointed by the lack of vote and/or statement.
Based on how Patty Murray (D) has said she would have voted YES but wasn't able to get to DC in time, it's clear it was never going to pass to begin with. This happens often – someone like Mitch McConnell might whip the votes, realize they're ahead, and allow a few Republicans that are at-risk to vote YES to provide cover for them in the future. Remember, even if you count the two Independents as Democrats, there's still 6 more Republicans. We've seen this with Susan Collins a lot; if Republicans don't need her vote she'll vote against them. But when they need it, she votes with the party like clockwork.
So, now we get to be mad at Sanders and Murray (the Democrats who weren't in DC), and nobody blames the 37 Republicans who actually killed it. Remember that McConnell decides what is voted on, and he always knows the votes. Maybe the one exception ever was McCain saving Obamacare.
I feel certain Sanders would have voted YES. He's historically been mostly pro-Snowden, anti-surveillance, and pro-whistleblowers (it's nuanced; for example he thinks Snowden should be prosecuted but also thinks what he did was right and that he should get a plea deal).
(Not the point, but it's insane Senators have to be physically present, especially given the situation. At least one Senator missed the vote due to quarantine. Why are we making a 78 year old man physically fly to DC to vote, and do so in a chamber full of at least one person who has had COVID-19 recently?)
Like I said, I'm still disappointed we haven't even gotten a statement from Sanders yet. But this whole thing has been on my mind a lot today.
>nobody blames the 37 Republicans who actually killed it
I think we _do_ blame the 37 Republicans, it's just that that's not a particularly new emotion to feel at this point. It's no secret that the GOP pulls this stuff (as, like you noted, with Collins).
Currently, though, Bernie (and Murray, who at least commented) have the image of not being present for what, even if only optically, feels like an incredibly important job. I've had to say this to a few people today: you can be equally annoyed with with the people who voted for it, the GOP who brought it, and those who weren't there to try and stop it to begin with.
Everyone on this forum knows what's at stake here, so it's frustrating to see the "one vote missing" here.
> Based on how Patty Murray (D) has said she would have voted YES but wasn't able to get to DC in time, it's clear it was never going to pass to begin with. This happens often – someone like Mitch McConnell might whip the votes, realize they're ahead, and allow a few Republicans that are at-risk to vote YES to provide cover for them in the future.
So make them vote yes. If they think it is a weakness to vote yes, all the more reason to force them to do so.
I agree that this likely wouldn't have passed even with Bernie since McConnell can easily whip a vote to switch.
That being said, this puts Bernie's incompetence at politicking in the spotlight. Any half decent politician would've been able to deflect, Murray is a perfect example of how easy it is.
Bernie not voting yes for this is the final nail in the coffin for my enthusiasm towards him. I'd still take him over others, but he's no longer the firebrand anti-authoritarian that I took him for initially.
Wyden is probably one of the few senators, who is consistent on this issue. Everyone else, at best, pays lip service or repeats talking points about terrorism and the need to protect America from the ever present danger.
Given the issues in terms of lives lost and economic damage due to the pandemic, the outcome of a terrorist attack doesn't really seem that bad. I would hope that the public would see through the farce of the security apparatus and let the patriot act expire and get rid of organizations like the TSA.
It's really hard for me to tell on these issues what is real. I feel like they just have a certain number of senators who are allowed to look moral, but the end result always needs to be that surveillance wins. My gut says that Wyden just happens to have drawn the long straw in a sick game to make the Seante look more moral than it is, but if he needed to vote for it to pass for some reason, he would. This loss is kinda like a carnie saying "oh close one, you almost got it" in a game he knows is fixed.
Ron Paul is also quite consistent. He's done a good job of keeping the Trump side of the Republican party happy with him through his words while still being the Republican senator who votes against Trump the most.
People in power should always have to justify their actions to us. Always. They should always be questioned. This (in theory) is how we ensure their power isn’t abused.
We should have privacy while they do not. A lack of privacy should be a cost to the power they’re entrusted with.
If it’s legal for them to sift through our lives while they refuse to be questioned, and they act insulted that we dare question their actions, we have gone off the rails.
Just a reminder that if you're upset about this, politics is an active process. I'm going to look up my senator's votes right now and send them an email if they were one of the nay votes.
Makes me pretty happy to see headlines with him and generally be quite proud of what I see. If only I could say the same thing about our congressman in OR2...
PopVox record for the bill which was to be amended[1]
Congress.gov article for the same bill[2]
I'm thoroughly confused about the current process. It looks like HR6172 is the House "version" of the extension on the "USA FREEDOM Act" thru 2023 and S3421[3] is the Senate attempt to do the same. I can't find any references on Congress.gov which references Ron Wyden's proposed amendment.
If the Senate has amended the House bill, it will have to go back to the House (or a conference committee) to hammer out a unified version, which then needs to be voted on again and passed by both sides. This isn't a done deal (yet).
Short term solution: Well VPNs for all, Ghostery [1] was running a deal on their paid version with a VPN built into their add-on [1].
Long term: The State is making their panopticon ambitions overt now in the public eye, thus spurring on the need to re-design the Internet entirely to avoid this.
Anyone know what Starlink is offering in terms of privacy? Details are sparse for the most part right now, but given their ties to DoD I'm not sure how this will play out. Sounds like a product release presentation is needed to clarify some things.
Edit: I plan on buying Ghostery Midnight but it's Windows/Mac only, so no Linux! I guess these Bitcoin accepting ones will have to do [2].
Most traffic is over HTTPS, so VPNs aren't as useful as they once were. The advice of "don't go to your bank's website on coffee shop wifi" is 10-15 years out-of-date. Yes, HTTPS has some holes, but HSTS and certificate pinning help.
If you're this level of worried, you should make sure you're either signed out go Google/Gmail or have your search history turned off. A VPN offers zero added protection. there. IIRC, Google claims your history is anonymized. Wouldn't hurt to use DDG if you're paranoid.
VPNs are hit-or-miss on how they handle DNS requests. Even using a VPN, you might leak that you're a Hacker News reader.
I guess a VPN that doesn't log might protect you against going to an IP known to host bad things.
Starlink is a product of a U.S. company. That's great if you're in China and want to get around the Great Firewall, but it's no use if you're in the U.S. and want to evade the panopticon. Not that there are many countries whose Starlink alternatives (if they had them, which they don't) could be trusted by anyone in the U.S.
VPN + DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) is a very potent combo turning your internet connection into an opaque pipe, as far as your ISP is concerned. DoH hides your DNS requests from your ISP, and a VPN service (basically glorified proxies these days) hide the IPs of site you're visiting.
If you are concerned about this issue then I urge you to use that combo. The more people doing that and the more normal that kind of traffic becomes the less able law enforcement is to use it as probable cause or similar.
AFAIK Mullvad is a non-US VPN service that does not require personal info for sign up and accepts cryptocurrency payments. Though I haven't used them myself so I can't speak for service quality.
For DoH, I'm only aware of Google and Cloudflare offering that. However they are both US companies so if anyone has a non-US recommendation I would appreciate it. At least using them is one step removed from your ISP, making it a little harder to get your records.
Is there a senator who is filibustering this bill? It seems that there were 59 yes votes and four absences - how many nays are there, and who is obstructing this bill?
The president must be at least planning on obstructing the bill, since the only reason they'd need 60 votes would be to overcome a veto.
If we treat the absences as very wimpy nay votes, and lump the 2 independents in with the party they caucus with (both Democrat), then the party breakdown looks like this:
Democrats: 35 yea, 12 nay, so ~75% in favor.
Republicans, 24 yea, 29 nay, so ~45% in favor.
The 59 yea votes consisted of 35 Democrats (King is independent but caucuses with the Democrats), and 24 Republicans. I'm much more interested in why it failed to pass, so I'll refrain from listing the yea votes for brevity.
The 4 absent senators were 2 Democrats (Sanders is independent but caucuses with the Democrats), and 2 Republicans:
Alexander (R-TN)
Murray (D-WA)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sasse (R-NE)
The 37 nay votes were from 10 Democrat and 27 Republican senators:
"But the amendment fell short by one vote of the required 60 votes to pass the chamber."
No, it needed 60 for cloture, to stop debate. Pass/fail requires a simple majority in a subsequent vote.
"Assuming none of the amendments pass, the final bill is likely to skip the House — which passed its version of the bill earlier this year — and await the president’s (sic) signature."
Uh, that's not how it works. A bill isn't enrolled (sent to the President) until the identical contents pass both houses. So, if the House has a distinct version with any difference whatsoever, it can't proceed.
These hits will keep coming. The only way is to fight it by joining the system and setting up a pro-privacy lobby group and fund it. I don’t know how long it can last though. I am pessimistic about this.
Lots of things change but the fact that rulers need to subdue the ruled has not changed.
What has changed is how either civilians or the military could withdraw their consent which gives a government legitimacy. Society thought it would be a good idea to log our thoughts and lives on computers and the internet,now rulers can monitor the ruled and adopt before they can organize any effort to withdraw their consent.
Suddenly all the weapons,money and elections are futile against rulers that monitor and manipulate thoughts and social relationships.
You can imagine why they feel like americans must be spied on. Their ability to maintain rule depends on it. Not all citizens are created equals in their minds. Deep divisions and addiction to power.
I wonder how broadly they define “internet browsing and search history”. I’m assuming email is somehow included. I wonder if mobile app data falls under the umbrella.
we did this to ourselves. we built these tools that are now at the disposal of people with malicious intentions. in another thread about surveillance of WFH employees everyone is aghast that managers would use such tools. again: we did this to ourselves.
you can shift the blame any number of times around the loop of responsibilities
it's not my fault it's my boss's fault -> it's not my fault it's the government's fault -> it's not my fault it's the constituency's fault -> it's not my fault it's the business's fault
and so on. someone has to admit fault and break the loop. for my part this year i left a dod funded project even though the money was easy.
> I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for this is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts. If the glory can be killed, we are lost.
Awesome. Now, FISA warrants can continue to be used without oversight to spy on Americans!! Goooo team! And who wants to do this?? These guys! yaaaaay!
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll099.xml
[+] [-] kitotik|5 years ago|reply
Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surveillance on American citizens, which of course is not expected to pass.
McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.
[+] [-] toofy|5 years ago|reply
So privacy for those in positions of power but not for us plebes.
[+] [-] ashtonkem|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hanklazard|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dvtrn|5 years ago|reply
I often encourage (and practice myself) looking for a tip email address to your favorite outlets and sending them...well a tip when there’s a story going on they haven’t yet reported, but one feels especially is need of wider dissemination.
Feels almost civic.
Strongly encouraging it here, too :)
[+] [-] ezoe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spooky23|5 years ago|reply
It passed by one vote. He missed it.
[+] [-] bulldog13|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] VWWHFSfQ|5 years ago|reply
What media do you think should cover this? FOX News? CNN? MSNBC? Do you think Rachel Maddow should report on this? Who is going to report on this kind of stuff?
[+] [-] ueu33hyrdd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gkoberger|5 years ago|reply
Based on how Patty Murray (D) has said she would have voted YES but wasn't able to get to DC in time, it's clear it was never going to pass to begin with. This happens often – someone like Mitch McConnell might whip the votes, realize they're ahead, and allow a few Republicans that are at-risk to vote YES to provide cover for them in the future. Remember, even if you count the two Independents as Democrats, there's still 6 more Republicans. We've seen this with Susan Collins a lot; if Republicans don't need her vote she'll vote against them. But when they need it, she votes with the party like clockwork.
So, now we get to be mad at Sanders and Murray (the Democrats who weren't in DC), and nobody blames the 37 Republicans who actually killed it. Remember that McConnell decides what is voted on, and he always knows the votes. Maybe the one exception ever was McCain saving Obamacare.
I feel certain Sanders would have voted YES. He's historically been mostly pro-Snowden, anti-surveillance, and pro-whistleblowers (it's nuanced; for example he thinks Snowden should be prosecuted but also thinks what he did was right and that he should get a plea deal).
(Not the point, but it's insane Senators have to be physically present, especially given the situation. At least one Senator missed the vote due to quarantine. Why are we making a 78 year old man physically fly to DC to vote, and do so in a chamber full of at least one person who has had COVID-19 recently?)
Like I said, I'm still disappointed we haven't even gotten a statement from Sanders yet. But this whole thing has been on my mind a lot today.
[+] [-] Klonoar|5 years ago|reply
I think we _do_ blame the 37 Republicans, it's just that that's not a particularly new emotion to feel at this point. It's no secret that the GOP pulls this stuff (as, like you noted, with Collins).
Currently, though, Bernie (and Murray, who at least commented) have the image of not being present for what, even if only optically, feels like an incredibly important job. I've had to say this to a few people today: you can be equally annoyed with with the people who voted for it, the GOP who brought it, and those who weren't there to try and stop it to begin with.
Everyone on this forum knows what's at stake here, so it's frustrating to see the "one vote missing" here.
Edit: a word.
[+] [-] creato|5 years ago|reply
So make them vote yes. If they think it is a weakness to vote yes, all the more reason to force them to do so.
[+] [-] kenhwang|5 years ago|reply
That being said, this puts Bernie's incompetence at politicking in the spotlight. Any half decent politician would've been able to deflect, Murray is a perfect example of how easy it is.
[+] [-] Der_Einzige|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rectang|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] u801e|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kolbe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pochamago|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toofy|5 years ago|reply
People in power should always have to justify their actions to us. Always. They should always be questioned. This (in theory) is how we ensure their power isn’t abused.
We should have privacy while they do not. A lack of privacy should be a cost to the power they’re entrusted with.
If it’s legal for them to sift through our lives while they refuse to be questioned, and they act insulted that we dare question their actions, we have gone off the rails.
[+] [-] RonanTheGrey|5 years ago|reply
100% agree that the tradeoff of power should be a loss of privacy.
[+] [-] vharuck|5 years ago|reply
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
[+] [-] djaque|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rootusrootus|5 years ago|reply
Too bad he couldn't quite get all the necessary votes.
[+] [-] davidw|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coronadisaster|5 years ago|reply
happy since 1996
[+] [-] thephyber|5 years ago|reply
Congress.gov article for the same bill[2]
I'm thoroughly confused about the current process. It looks like HR6172 is the House "version" of the extension on the "USA FREEDOM Act" thru 2023 and S3421[3] is the Senate attempt to do the same. I can't find any references on Congress.gov which references Ron Wyden's proposed amendment.
[1] https://www.popvox.com/us/federal/bills/116/hr6172
[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6172
[3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/342...
[+] [-] Rafuino|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] croon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Melting_Harps|5 years ago|reply
Long term: The State is making their panopticon ambitions overt now in the public eye, thus spurring on the need to re-design the Internet entirely to avoid this.
Anyone know what Starlink is offering in terms of privacy? Details are sparse for the most part right now, but given their ties to DoD I'm not sure how this will play out. Sounds like a product release presentation is needed to clarify some things.
Edit: I plan on buying Ghostery Midnight but it's Windows/Mac only, so no Linux! I guess these Bitcoin accepting ones will have to do [2].
1: https://www.ghostery.com/midnight/
2: https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/vpn-bitcoin/
[+] [-] dehrmann|5 years ago|reply
If you're this level of worried, you should make sure you're either signed out go Google/Gmail or have your search history turned off. A VPN offers zero added protection. there. IIRC, Google claims your history is anonymized. Wouldn't hurt to use DDG if you're paranoid.
VPNs are hit-or-miss on how they handle DNS requests. Even using a VPN, you might leak that you're a Hacker News reader.
I guess a VPN that doesn't log might protect you against going to an IP known to host bad things.
[+] [-] kitotik|5 years ago|reply
The web as we know it and the handful of corporations that dominate it are known to be compromised and no amount of work arounds will change that.
The real answer is the complete boycott of the major providers, more independent ISPs, E2EE, and embracing alternative protocols.
[+] [-] quest88|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryptonector|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billme|5 years ago|reply
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6172
—— or better yet, read what the EFF wrote recently on it:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/yes-section-215-expire...
[+] [-] null0pointer|5 years ago|reply
AFAIK Mullvad is a non-US VPN service that does not require personal info for sign up and accepts cryptocurrency payments. Though I haven't used them myself so I can't speak for service quality. For DoH, I'm only aware of Google and Cloudflare offering that. However they are both US companies so if anyone has a non-US recommendation I would appreciate it. At least using them is one step removed from your ISP, making it a little harder to get your records.
Please correct me if I have anything wrong.
[+] [-] ejstronge|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ABeeSea|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mwfunk|5 years ago|reply
If we treat the absences as very wimpy nay votes, and lump the 2 independents in with the party they caucus with (both Democrat), then the party breakdown looks like this:
Democrats: 35 yea, 12 nay, so ~75% in favor. Republicans, 24 yea, 29 nay, so ~45% in favor.
The 59 yea votes consisted of 35 Democrats (King is independent but caucuses with the Democrats), and 24 Republicans. I'm much more interested in why it failed to pass, so I'll refrain from listing the yea votes for brevity.
The 4 absent senators were 2 Democrats (Sanders is independent but caucuses with the Democrats), and 2 Republicans:
Alexander (R-TN) Murray (D-WA) Sanders (I-VT) Sasse (R-NE)
The 37 nay votes were from 10 Democrat and 27 Republican senators:
Barrasso (R-WY) Blackburn (R-TN) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Burr (R-NC) Capito (R-WV) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Cotton (R-AR) Feinstein (D-CA) Fischer (R-NE) Graham (R-SC) Hassan (D-NH) Hyde-Smith (R-MS) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (R-WI) Jones (D-AL) Kaine (D-VA) Lankford (R-OK) Manchin (D-WV) McConnell (R-KY) Perdue (R-GA) Portman (R-OH) Roberts (R-KS) Romney (R-UT) Rubio (R-FL) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Tillis (R-NC) Toomey (R-PA) Warner (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS) Young (R-IN)
[+] [-] DrScump|5 years ago|reply
"But the amendment fell short by one vote of the required 60 votes to pass the chamber."
No, it needed 60 for cloture, to stop debate. Pass/fail requires a simple majority in a subsequent vote.
"Assuming none of the amendments pass, the final bill is likely to skip the House — which passed its version of the bill earlier this year — and await the president’s (sic) signature."
Uh, that's not how it works. A bill isn't enrolled (sent to the President) until the identical contents pass both houses. So, if the House has a distinct version with any difference whatsoever, it can't proceed.
[+] [-] yalogin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badrabbit|5 years ago|reply
What has changed is how either civilians or the military could withdraw their consent which gives a government legitimacy. Society thought it would be a good idea to log our thoughts and lives on computers and the internet,now rulers can monitor the ruled and adopt before they can organize any effort to withdraw their consent.
Suddenly all the weapons,money and elections are futile against rulers that monitor and manipulate thoughts and social relationships.
You can imagine why they feel like americans must be spied on. Their ability to maintain rule depends on it. Not all citizens are created equals in their minds. Deep divisions and addiction to power.
Begining of the end, or end of the begining?
[+] [-] kitotik|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pstuart|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwlaplace|5 years ago|reply
-Robert Oppenheimer
we did this to ourselves. we built these tools that are now at the disposal of people with malicious intentions. in another thread about surveillance of WFH employees everyone is aghast that managers would use such tools. again: we did this to ourselves.
you can shift the blame any number of times around the loop of responsibilities
it's not my fault it's my boss's fault -> it's not my fault it's the government's fault -> it's not my fault it's the constituency's fault -> it's not my fault it's the business's fault
and so on. someone has to admit fault and break the loop. for my part this year i left a dod funded project even though the money was easy.
[+] [-] kag0|5 years ago|reply
~ John Steinbeck
[+] [-] oojojo|5 years ago|reply