• H.R.4681 has silently passed through Congress
    67 replies, posted
[QUOTE=LSK;46696727]That doesn't seem like a problem? They may not care, but why should they have access to it in the first place? It's private for a reason, even if they will most likely never ever look at it, if they can it isn't private. It's the principle of the whole thing. It's weird knowing that people are trying to document everything I've ever done, and what if someone gets access to it, or an employee goes rogue and releases as much as they possibly can (It's not like that hasn't happened before)? The bad scenarios outweigh the good, no matter how seemingly minuscule and unlikely. If anything in the end it's just a waste of money that could be spent on something far more beneficial for our country.[/QUOTE] If an employee went rogue and released as much as they could then that would still be a fuckton of information that nobody in their right mind would bother sifting through, especially not people like you and me. I never said this was a good bill though. It's bad. But I just don't see a reason or care enough to go yelling privacy-invasion, because (and this argument is probably terrible) I myself have nothing to hide.
Countless times those fucks tried to release the same shit under a different little thing This problem is so fucking annoying that the country where I lived wanted to make a new internet without the spying.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;46696812]If an employee went rogue and released as much as they could then that would still be a fuckton of information that nobody in their right mind would bother sifting through, especially not people like you and me. I never said this was a good bill though. It's bad. But I just don't see a reason or care enough to go yelling privacy-invasion, because (and this argument is probably terrible) I myself have nothing to hide.[/QUOTE] How about the fact that it's a colossal waste of money then, not just in terms of tax money but also costing tech companies billions of dollars in wasted time to set up what are essentially giant wire taps on all of their systems so that the NSA can read all of their data, which is destroying US based business. [QUOTE]For companies to thrive under this model of destruction, they may need to consider moving operations outside of U.S. jurisdiction. In the past, companies have moved part of their operations outside the U.S. to help cut manufacturing costs, while keeping corporate offices in the U.S. That could very well change in the future. U.S.-based companies may be forced to move corporate operations elsewhere to be able to provide services globally.[/QUOTE] [url]http://windowsitpro.com/cloud/nsa-fallout-costs-us-based-companies-even-more-revenue[/url] [QUOTE]IBM is spending more than a billion dollars to build data centers overseas to reassure foreign customers that their information is safe from prying eyes in the United States government. And tech companies abroad, from Europe to South America, say they are gaining customers that are shunning United States providers, suspicious because of the revelations by Edward J. Snowden that tied these providers to the National Security Agency’s vast surveillance program.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/business/fallout-from-snowden-hurting-bottom-line-of-tech-companies.html?_r=0[/url] [QUOTE]An analysis of financial filings from technology giants IBM and Cisco by The Independent on Sunday reveals the two businesses have seen sales slump by more than $1.7bn (£1.03bn) year-on-year in the important Asia-Pacific region since Mr Snowden revealed in June that US companies had been compromised by the NSA's intelligence-gathering in the clandestine Prism programme.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/it-firms-lose-billions-after-nsa-scandal-exposed-by-whistleblower-edward-snowden-9028599.html[/url] Why spend all these money on an ineffectual attempt to spy on the entire population of America when it costs billions of dollars in tax revenue and in American businesses.
IMHO if you haven't read the bill or a 100% truly unbiased objective source that clearly defines specifically what the bill is, arguing about it is pretty stupid and your entire point is moot when you trust only what the media says I'm not saying anyone here don't talk about how this is literally the epitome of police state unless you actually know what it actually says. The media in the US has this stupid agenda where they spin anything they can. and also don't trust people who don't say why the bill is bad and directly quote where it's bad and exactly why it is.
It should be required by law to announce to the public any laws that will be going up for a vote at least several weeks before the vote is held, that way people know about it and can make their voices heard. Oh what am I saying, they don't care what we think.
[QUOTE=Jrose14;46697080]It should be required by law to announce to the public any laws that will be going up for a vote at least several weeks before the vote is held, that way people know about it and can make their voices heard. Oh what am I saying, they don't care what we think.[/QUOTE] You mean it should be illegal? Like half the shit our government does?
Bring it on assholes, I ain't got nothin' for you to take anyways other than my sweet, sweet cock. Yeah I'm talkin' to you NSA, who's probably watching me right now. (Due to the fact that I: Watch firearms videos, took a class on Mid-East history, have shown sympathy for Islam in the past, nefariously stole a candy bar when I was 11)
Here's to hoping Obama vetoes it.
The only way Obama might veto it is if the US people make a huge fuss about it.
[QUOTE](iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning;[/QUOTE] What in the fuck, man? I'm not allowed to encipher my own fucking information without consenting to this 4th amendment-breaking bullshit?
It doesn't seem like the fuss is picking up in traction. We're only two pages in.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46695874]stuff[/QUOTE] I couldn't really understand all of that with a casual reading, so I took notes. Here they are for everyone's benifit. [QUOTE] Covered Communications are defined as - Private - Telephone or electronic communication - Acquired without the consent of a person who is party to the communication - Includes stored communications The rules of this act must be adopted in 2 years - Only apply to activity conducted without a court order - Only apply to US person - Applies to activity that permits the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications & subject to the limitation of subparagraph B (no idea where that is) Communications cannot be held for more than 5 years unless - It's foreign intelligence - It's counterintelligence - It's necessary to understand or addess the above two - It's reasonably believed to be evidence of a crime - It's encrypted ("encyphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning") - All parties of the communication aren't US citizens - It's necessary to proctect agains an imminent threat to human life * If so, the nature of the thread ant the information to be detained shall be reported to congress committees not later than 30 days after the date such retention is extended under this clause - It's necessary for technical assurance of compliance purposes * eg court order or discovery obligation * required to report to congressional intelligence committee on an anual basis - It's approved by the leader of the collection operation * requires that he/she submit a written certification describing + Why it is necessary + The duration for which data will be kept + What specifically will be retained + What measures they will be taking to address the privacy interests of those inside the US [/QUOTE] Things to note: - Non-Americans are free game - Acquisition of private communications both live and stored is permitted - Communications can be held for up to 5 years, unless they meet the qualifications listed above - Retention rules can be bent if they can get a congressional committee to approve it - Encrypted communications can be stored forever So uh, yeah, everything said in the OP by the congressman seems to be correct.
[QUOTE=Mecha Pirate;46697873]It doesn't seem like the fuss is picking up in traction. We're only two pages in.[/QUOTE] we've all but given up
[QUOTE=Mecha Pirate;46697873]It doesn't seem like the fuss is picking up in traction. We're only two pages in.[/QUOTE] Yep, they'll do what they want to do. What is the point honestly? US has laws, bill of rights and constitution but yet none of that matters when your "elected" officials just create their own laws to by-pass everything else. Media got everyone distracted on police and shootings that shit like this slides by. People should be more combative towards shit like this, but instead they're burning shit to the ground over a story that the media totally spun.
[QUOTE=sasherz;46698455]I couldn't really understand all of that with a casual reading, so I took notes. Here they are for everyone's benifit. Things to note: - Non-Americans are free game - Acquisition of private communications both live and stored is permitted - Communications can be held for up to 5 years, unless they meet the qualifications listed above - Retention rules can be bent if they can get a congressional committee to approve it - Encrypted communications can be stored forever So uh, yeah, everything said in the OP by the congressman seems to be correct.[/QUOTE] so encryption is no longer allowed? doesn't that mean Tor (and as a result, the "darknet") will be free-game or does the way Tor works stop this?
My government honestly scares the shit out of me. I shouldn't need to feel that I am constantly under scrutiny, and every word I type or say online is being parsed and analyzed to determine if I am a potential threat to the United States. That's assuming that future leaders only use that power for good. [editline]12th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Eeshton;46698948]so encryption is no longer allowed? doesn't that mean Tor (and as a result, the "darknet") will be free-game or does the way Tor works stop this?[/QUOTE] It only states that if the communications in question are encrypted, they can be stored indefinitely. The only hazard this presents is that they can be decrypted in the future when the encryption used is easily crackable or a flaw is found in the algorithm. If the NSA has systems in place to intercept traffic on all of the ISPs each Tor node you're being routed through is hosted with, then they could render Tor useless.
don't feel afraid citizen, we just need to make sure you're innocent after we find you guilty
A bill should be passed where hidden parts that are not widely known make the entire bill void so shit like this does not happen.
[QUOTE=sasherz;46698455]I couldn't really understand all of that with a casual reading, so I took notes. Here they are for everyone's benifit. Things to note: - Non-Americans are free game - Acquisition of private communications both live and stored is permitted - Communications can be held for up to 5 years, unless they meet the qualifications listed above - Retention rules can be bent if they can get a congressional committee to approve it - Encrypted communications can be stored forever So uh, yeah, everything said in the OP by the congressman seems to be correct.[/QUOTE] No its not. You cant dumb the words down because then they lose meaning. This section, 309, says that law enforcement can keep any incidental information gathered from an already ongoing surveillance. Additionally, its setting limits on how long that data can be held. When you apply for a search warrant (for example) you have to lay out your probable cause and an explicit list of items your looking for. You cannot take anything that is not on the warrant. This bill says that if I have a search warrant for guns and I find explosives, I can keep the explosives for a period of time. As it relates to this bill: Lets say you have a tap for terrorism, but you happen to gather information about a bank heist thats going to happen. Instead of getting another court order for another tap, you can keep that bank heist information within the original one since you were not actively listening for it (incidental). This bill is not the ultra-hyped end all to your privacy. This does not authorize warrantless searches of anything. This does not authorize mass spying.
[QUOTE=cody8295;46697744]What in the fuck, man? I'm not allowed to encipher my own fucking information without consenting to this 4th amendment-breaking bullshit?[/QUOTE] They can store your information regardless of whether or not it's encrypted, just if it's encrypted they can store it as long as they want.
[url]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/protect-our-privacy-and-please-veto-hr-4681-aka-intelligence-authorization-act-fiscal-year-2015/lln5hN5c[/url] Was this linked before?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46699154]As it relates to this bill: Lets say you have a tap for terrorism, but you happen to gather information about a bank heist thats going to happen. Instead of getting another court order for another tap, you can keep that bank heist information within the original one since you were not actively listening for it (incidental).[/QUOTE] I see nothing in here specifying that, just the word incidental. That word can also mean "liable to happen as a consequence of an activity". Therefore, I interpret "PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS." as "What to do with stuff we acquire during our surveillance operations". As for the part that seems to suggest it being warrantless: [QUOTE] (A) Application.--The procedures required by paragraph (1) [B]shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication[/B] to or from a United States person and shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject to the limitation in subparagraph (B).[/QUOTE] I'm not a lawyer or a law student, so perhaps I'm reading this wrong. Please prove me wrong, I'd like to not feel anxious about this anymore.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;46697608]Here's to hoping Obama vetoes it.[/QUOTE] Obama called on Democrats to pass the funding bill in the first place. It's a "compromise" with Republicans, in that Republicans get practically everything they wanted except slightly more spending.
[QUOTE=archangel125;46697641]The only way Obama might veto it is if the US people make a huge fuss about it.[/QUOTE] Like the NDAA bill that he actually said "I don't like things in this bill" as he smiled and signed it in front of the cameras.
[QUOTE=darunner;46706447]Like the NDAA bill that he actually said "I don't like things in this bill" as he smiled and signed it in front of the cameras.[/QUOTE] "I don't like that this bill silently deregulates some of the banks that happened to give me campaign financing. I also don't like how it silently raises the limit of money you can give to candidates. I'm still going to sign it though, because I want my legacy to be one of compromise" This is the bipartisanship you wanted FP. Suck it down.
Looks like all the shit the US got in trouble for with the Snowden revelations is going to be legal now. It's funny to see this being passed because they are probably continuing to do all their usual spying (probably more of it now) and now that everyone knows about it they're just sneaking behind everyone's back and making it fully legal for themselves.
And now whenever they bring up the possibility of striking down the law it will be filibuster filibuster, not working across party lines, do you want the terrorists to just run rampant, etc.
America's dead, it's been dead for a while, and there is no escape for most of us.
[QUOTE=GunFox;46695866]I've actually been trying and I haven't found anything terribly offensive in the summary of the bill. Hahah, in the middle of a bunch of stuff about funding and requirements for intelligence agencies in the US, this pops up: "(Sec. 315) Expands a grant program for historically black colleges and universities to include predominantly black institutions." It just seems so out of place.[/QUOTE] Black ops cover up confirmed.
[QUOTE=Jrose14;46697080]It should be required by law to announce to the public any laws that will be going up for a vote at least several weeks before the vote is held, that way people know about it and can make their voices heard. Oh what am I saying, they don't care what we think.[/QUOTE] It is. You can easily look at every part of the process and where the law currently is in preparation. It's also generally required to list in advance the date of the vote for the legislature.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.