this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024

148 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19089 readers

3718 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

148

U.S. House Vote Narrowly Allows Rampant Abuses of Warrantless Spying Authority to Continue (US focused) (cdt.org)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/15271710

Not a good result. The good amendment to add a warrant requirement failed on a tie vote; bad amendments to expand the scope of warrantless wiretapping passed. Next step: a Senate vote.

top 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If they expect me to take the Constitution seriously they'll need to do the same.

What a joke of a country.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago

"All men are created equal"

Is slave state

always has been.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Brought to us by the same people saying we need to protect democracy

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Republicans don't say that and they control the house

Get a clue or a brain.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I'm talking about Democrats

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

And many of those votes in favor also claim we need to save Democracy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Here’s your privacy friendly reminder that the government is currently incapable of decrypting end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) transmissions like iMessage, FaceTime, Signal, Viber, Telegram, WhatsApp, Protonmail, etc.

[+] [email protected] -9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act establishes procedures for the surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence on domestic soil. If foreign agents are using communications signals to communicate with someone in the US, the government must go to the FISA court and obtain a warrant for surveillance. This is how we found out about Trump Jr. Contact with Russian agents. Catches a lot of spies. On the whole, better to have than not

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The FBI routinely uses its authority under FISA Section 702 to get information on Americans without a warrant, ignoring the processes that are supposed to be put in place to protect people. This has nothing to do with the FISA Title III authority that was used to get information about Carter Page, no matter what you and Trump think. If you warrantless surveillance of Americans is good, then by all means you should indeed be cheering this vote -- because they extended the scope of what information they can get at without a warrant.

If on the other hand you think civil liberties are worth protecting, then you might take a moment to stop to think that there was bipartisan support, including progressive Democrats, for introducing reforms like a warrant requirement while still keeping the ability to surveil foreign agents in place. But opinions differ, there are plenty of people in both parties who don't think civil liberties are worth protecting, so if you're one of them you've got a lot of company.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The FISA court provides warrants, it's what they do. If I was a legal compliance officer at a Telcom, I wouldn't move my ass for anything but a warrant. A tap without a warrant is illegal and puts the operating company in jeopardy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

From the article:

FISA 702 warrantless surveillance purports to target only foreign subjects, but in practice sweeps in a huge amount of Americans’ communications. This allows intelligence agencies to exploit a backdoor search loophole: the FBI, CIA, and NSA conduct “U.S. person queries” of FISA 702 records to deliberately pull up Americans’ private messages, all without a warrant or any court approval. This loophole has led to systemic abuse, involving thousands of improper queries each year, including those directed at protesters, campaign donors, journalists, lawmakers, and — in one case — the online dating matches of an analyst.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

OK. There are no laws against the NSA picking up.foreign communications. In fact, that's the reason they exist. So they monitor a phone call originating from Moscow, say, of a person they find of interest. All of a sudden, that guy makes a call to someone in the US. Should the NSA simply hang up and not find out what it's all about due to a lack of warrant? Also, the technology doesn't make that immediately possible.

The courts have decided that text messages, as well as mobile tracking, do not need lawful warrants. Usually you don't apply for a warrant when you don't need one.

BTW, phone records are actually operating company business records. You don't own them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Should the NSA simply hang up and not find out what it’s all about due to a lack of warrant?

Yes.

There, that was easy.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

First of all, it's a computer take and no hangups can be done. Nobody is listening real time.

Secondly, what you miss could kill you. But, I guess you know better.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure as I type this there are men beating their wives and children, maybe to death.

Should the government put cameras in every house to prevent this?

If not, why do you hate women and children and want them to die?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What if they never wrote "bin Laden Determined to Strike US" because they didn't know? Would you still think they were doing their jobs as you sipped your morning coffee atop the WTC?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The Patriot Act* didn't exist before 9/11. Your argument is invalid.

Also, the NSA can get the FBI to get a warrant for the person in the US. We already have mechanisms for monitoring communications in the US.

* It's actually called the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." I prefer the acronym U SAP AT RIOT/

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

FISA has existed since 1978

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

Section 702 has only existed since 2008.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What if they never wrote “bin Laden Determined to Strike US” because they didn’t know?

They got that information before section 702 was a thing. You're supporting GWB's wiretapping policy.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's actually not true, but I expect that you only posted so you could downvote further.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The memo gwb ignored before 9/11 was before section 702 existed. 702 didn't go into effect until 2008.

If you don't want me to downvote you, don't lie in support of a gwb policy.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That's it isn't it. You don't understand the program, and the result is its bad.

Section 702 is only the current iteration of a legal problem that has been brought to congress by FISA users since its inception. It really has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and more to do with the inability of Congress.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You don’t understand the program

I understand that whenever a centrist is dead wrong about something, they pull this gaslighting horseshit.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

HILARIOUS

You centrist! You're gaslighting me with facts!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You pretended that a policy that didn't exist before 2008 provided the intel Bush ignored before 9/11.

You don't understand how linear time works, and have presented no facts.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You don't understand how FISA was implemented. You'd rather be consumed by things you don't know about than become aware of things that are totally out of hand.

For instance, up the string I said that the courts have ruled that mobile location tracking wasn't an issue where a warrant was needed. Not only that, but you don't know mobile location tracking is commercially available. Anyone can buy the data, and that's wrong. Senator Ron Wydon has been working on this for years. Instead of being worried about all the rights you have that are not being taken away, worry about the those that are.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You pretended that section 702 got us the intel Bush ignored prior to 9/11. It couldn't have, as it was implemented almost a decade later.

You lied.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sigh...if that's the best you can do, I am now bored.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not here to entertain you.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago

Its worked

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

Lotta people just don't understand this.