As Wyden points out, Congress has nearly no information on what impact the FISA program has. How many Americans are targeted already? The military refuses to answer Congress. How many emails & other collections are swept up? The military refuses to answer to Congress.
This bill explicitly allows it's use directly against Americans and declares which circumstances the FBI & other agencies need to use warrants and where these agencies will now be permitted warrantless access to FISA collections.
"Abouts" collection has a direct means to being permitted again. Ever use the word Benghazi in an email? Ok, all your communication might be wiretapped from now on. If the FBI ever wants to investigate you for something non terrorism related, something totally unrelated to Benghazi? No problem. Maybe- in some cases- they MIGHT need a warrant.
Just Security had a great writeup. This bill is a travesty, especially given that Congress has again and again asked for some information to inform them about how FISA is being used already, and the military has stonewalled and stonewalled and stonewalled. That congress would radically expand these powers, let them now directly target Americans, and would allow the FBI & others access to this program, after being continually rebuffed, AND would make this program unable to be challenged in court- it's the pinnacle of madness. It's complete dereliction of duty by congress, and one of the saddest moments of cowardice in the US Governments history that we'd stoop so low.
55 House Democrats, including Pelosi, voted against the USA Rights Act amendment that would have substantially limited the surveillance against US citizens. 65 House Democrats ultimately voted in favor of this bill and giving the Trump admin more unchecked surveillance powers.
This has been a can kicked for many a mile. First bush, then obama, and now trump. The undocumented and largely ignored effect of FISA is that it is quietly driving cryptography to unprecedented levels of adoption. OpenPGP is part of Yubikey now, granting the average user HSM level security for their encryption for less than $50. Google has increased their cipherstrength and offers several multifactor solutions as well as foreign agent attack warnings for journalists. GPG offers curve25519 in light of just the implication of poisoned NIST primes. Signal sidesteps bugged SMS in favour of a hardened PFS channel of OTR deniable communication in video, voice and text. Letsencrypt is working to blanket the world in affordable, quick, and easy crypto for any site desired. Finally, tor's many exploits have been patched, and the protocols weaknesses have given way to more secure tools like i2p.
The government is largely focusing on iPhone at this point, and why not. Apple is an easy target to beat on for the woes of late stage capitalism and unchecked foreign policy, however any modern consumer tech company worth their salt has seen the writing for quite some time. Encrypt, and make sure you're out of the loop entirely.
This is bad news.
> “The Intelligence Committee’s bill disregards the Constitution and common sense by granting the government the authority to search Americans’ communications without first obtaining a warrant,” Schuman told The Intercept. “Not only does this turn the purpose of the foreign surveillance law on its head, transforming it into a domestic surveillance tool, but it places activists, minorities, and everyone else at the mercy of President Trump and Attorney General Sessions, who have made clear their disregard for legal constraints and democratic norms.”
I had a discussion with my mother regarding surveillance and privacy and how they relate to safety. I feel like she understands that surveillance when used in a nefarious manner can be detrimental to individual freedoms, but is pro surveillance regardless. This is because she believes that the benefits of keeping others safe outweighs the potential for misuse.
How can I help her understand why people fight for privacy?
The President actually tweeted two incompatible positions this morning. Guess they picked the one they wanted.
Let's say a state actor decides to cyber attack the US or allies. We want every person, gobernment or economic entity to be secure.
A state actor can do more widespread damage than what we gain by catching some terrorists.
Precisely for national security, we need good security in every entity.
> The vote on Thursday was a victory for the Trump administration and the intelligence community, which opposed imposing major new curbs on the program, and for Republican leadership, including House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who had blocked the House from an opportunity to consider a less-sweeping compromise package developed by the House Judiciary Committee. They gambled that faced with an all-or-essentially-nothing choice, a majority of lawmakers would choose the status quo — and won.
Normally if you do not like what a House member does there is not much you can do unless you are in that member's district. In that case you can vote for someone other than them.
In the case of Ryan, though, you can do something even if you live in another district. The majority party decides on who will be Speaker. If Ryan's partly loses its majority Ryan goes back to being just an ordinary member of the House, one of over 400. You can indirectly vote against Ryan's speakership by voting against the candidate from his party in your district.
> Mr. Trump, who is known to watch Fox News while he is tweeting, posted his tweet shortly after a Fox News legal analyst appealed directly to the president during a Thursday morning segment about the coming House vote. The analyst, Andrew Napolitano, turned to television cameras and said, “Mr. President, this is not the way to go.” He added that Mr. Trump’s “woes” began with surveillance.
But seriously we need someone in the oval office who feels strongly about protecting the privacy of Americans (and everyone else!). Trump is just another one in the line to rubber-stamp this. Not holding my breath though...
OK, it passed the House. Now the fight moves to the Senate. Anybody have any insight on whether it will fly through there, or whether there is a chance of derailing it?
Can someone clear it up for me. How likely is it that my google searches are being swept up and stored indefinitely, because I'm foreigner. I've disabled google search history, though I doubt it will help. Similar question - do they have a profile for every foreigner they can identify?
Curiosity is getting the best of me, and I figured HN is a good place to scratch the itch.
Has anyone done a study or solicited information from the government that shows the impact of legislation such as FISA or better yet the Patriot ACT's post provision sunset (what's left of the act) parts? Namely - hard numbers that shows in a numerical fashion the fact based evidence to keep overt invasions of privacy in check in the name of security.
Being from New York, I always try to question politicians here - more specifically Gov. Cuomo on the quantifiable evidence that supports the SAFE ACT's passage in our state - on such things, to have a better impact on things that affect me regionally vs. worrying about broad stroke Federal things that rarely do.
Turmp should be happy about this, it will be useful in cracking down on citizens and opponents who criticize him.
Thankfully the rules of math still apply and it's never been easier to use encryption just about everywhere.
The question for me is: at what point will people begin to reject this farce of a ruling elite that exists today?
This shouldn't be any surprise to anyone. Congress gives lip service to representing their constituents. In reality, the only people (and interests) they represent are THEMSELVES.
USA, the land of the monitored.
Privacy in the US is dead
someone needs to do independent audits in the form of a zero knowledge proof to say “ok I understand why the wizards and warlocks are at battle”. Used to be that we would say to ourselves, “we should consider It likely Obama flipped once in office because he saw confidential stuff that would make you sick”, which is a more cosmo view
FFS New York Times, can you not make EVERY GOD DAMN ARTICLE about Trump and distract everyone from the main issue here?
More than half of this article is about Trump's tweets. How about naming and shaming all the Republicans and Democrats that voted to extend the surveillance law instead?