First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Proposed legislation woud allow the police access to data with no warrant
36350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 3/14/18
https://medium.com/@Laila/new-bill-in-congress-would-hand-your-data-to-cops-3c9afa89266

A link is provided in the article to the actual text of the bill. The plan is to attach it to a government spending bill to sneak it through. Please take the time to read the article and contact your state representative ASAP if this matters to you.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 3/15/18
Yeah, that won't get challenged in court at all. Nope.
22866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/15/18
We need a law that bans attachments to spending bills.
452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
99
Offline
Posted 3/15/18
I kind of agree with Ruji each bill should stand or fall on it's own merits
qwueri 
22852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 3/15/18
It does seem like the truly gross legislation is slapped onto mundane fiscal pieces as riders.
469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Beneath the stars.
Offline
Posted 3/15/18
This disgusts me on multiple levels.
67751 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Glendale, AZ
Offline
Posted 3/16/18
Well, this sounds like another way that some of the feds are are doing to INTENTIONALLY violate the 4th Amendment.
3915 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 3/17/18
that's not uncommon for politics actually. it's either an attempt to make everyone happy, they don't care, not reading it, sold a bit more of their soul, or want the bill. let's hope those who parked it in, are the first on the chopping block if it's passed, highly doubtful, some think they are gods anyways and the law can't touch them.

after reading over said article, it looks like big brother wants to take his NSA rights to a whole new level. since they have already accessed the cloud on many occasions now and obtained medical records, etc, now the can reaccess and pull off the data and store it in their meta data storage ac buildings in Utah.

equally so I did pull this link off the web https://medium.com/@SenOrrinHatch/the-cloud-act-its-time-for-our-laws-to-catch-up-with-our-technology-90e90577f5ac ironically enough I saw Utah! never forget, you can't hack paper or pen, or anything that isn't connected to the net and/or never connected to the net. words of wisdom for the new digital era debacle.

from what I can tell it's more "attacking" across borders, after all, big brother has been able to access data in the states clouds for awhile now https://www.lawfareblog.com/cloud-act-welcome-legislative-fix-cross-border-data-problems and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/cloud-act-dangerous-expansion-police-snooping-cross-border-data
2506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Askran Kingdom
Offline
Posted 3/20/18
Violates the 4th Amendment and will be challenged immediately.
17429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 3/20/18
Meah. Facebook has more on you.and will gladly hand it over to the highest bidder. So nbd
36350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 29 days ago
The CLOUD Act made into the spending bill after all, and it looks like the bill is set to pass. Worse, several news sources are reporting that the bill somehow enhances privacy when it does the exact opposite. If you still haven't read about the legislation, please see the following short summary:

https://www.eff.org/document/cloud-act-one-page-summary
1459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 29 days ago
Somehow, I suspect that they were already doing it.
9021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Philadelphia, PA
Offline
Posted 29 days ago
"The CLOUD Act would hand police in the U.S., and other countries, extreme new powers to obtain and monitor data directly from tech companies instead of requiring a warrant and judicial review."

I don't find that to be the case, after reading through the proposed amendment, and what it amends. First of all, I don't see anything which allows the police to suddenly not work within the bounds of US law, and the document is much more concerned with dealing with foreign government, which I find to be the crux of the matter.

The article itself doesn't go into any real details. But the link to the Coalition Letter gives some arguments.

The letter claims that set duration won't be required for wiretaps, but that isn't true - the proposed amendment clearly states that wiretaps have to be set for fixed, limited duration.

The letter also claims that the AG needs to consider, but not affirmatively find, that a country “adheres to applicable human rights obligations” or “demonstrates respect for international human rights.” Also not true - the AG must determine and certify to Congress that the foreign government does in fact meet such requirements. The text is very clear on this point. In fact, there are all kinds of things the AG has to certify to Congress.

The Coalition Letter also claims that "[t]he legislation also would not require that foreign governments obtain prior approval from an independent decision-maker when making data requests, nor would they be required to show probable cause." Not true - the proposed amendment states this requirement in 2523, (b), (3), (D), (v).

"In addition, the bill would not ensure that users whose information is demanded are notified, so that they may challenge improper requests." What is the point of a wiretap, if the criminal suspect is expected to be notified?

"U.S . Government Requests for Data

The CLOUD Act also proposes permitting the DOJ to obtain data stored abroad without going through the MLAT process. But in doing so, the bill fails to ensure that such requests adequately protect individual rights and some of our most prominent concerns are: The bill does not specify that the DOJ must obtain a warrant for content or comply with constitutional notice obligations."

Okay, I don't see anywhere that the DOJ no longer has to work within the bounds it normally does within the US. The MLAT process is irrelevant, as that has to do with the agreement made with the foreign government about how that foreign government allows the US to pursue its own legal processes. If the foreign government permits it, then standard US legal process is at work, which includes needing a warrant. I don't see anything in the proposed text that changes that.

Overall, it looks to me like the concern here is that there may be persons in the US who are subject to foreign law, and thus not protected under the requirements of US constitutional law, when such an executive agreement is made by the AG in consultation with the Secretary of State and not disapproved by Congress. Well, that is sort of true, in that this kind of agreement allows foreign governments access to information according to their own legal standards, but it doesn't subject that person to any of the foreign government's other laws - I assume extradition would be required for that.

I have a hard time seeing this as a threat to US citizens and permanent residents, since they are excluded from the agreement, and there are strict conditions placed on the foreign government regarding information of Americans, as they are not permitted to target Americans, and anything incidentally gained does not have to be shared with the US, meaning the US government cannot gain the info illegally by requiring it from a country that failed to follow the standards of the US Constitution - which really would be a back-door way for the US government to get around the Fourth Amendment, if the foreign government was forced to share the info it acquired. I find it a common sense idea that the foreign government may incidentally acquire information about Americans; after all, the US government wire-tapping a criminal within the country might hear the criminal's conversations with foreign citizens when making international calls. Nothing surprising there.

Since any executive agreements should not affect the constitutional rights of American citizens and permanent residents, I don't really see a problem here.


36350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 28 days ago
The spending bill was signed by the president, and the CLOUD Act was attached to it.
469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Beneath the stars.
Offline
Posted 28 days ago

Cardamom_Ginger wrote:

Somehow, I suspect that they were already doing it.


Of course they were, but now even if you are rich enough to buy a decent lawyer to contest the unconstitutional manner in which they built the case against you there won't be a legal footing to stand upon.

First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.