
Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data - MLEnthusiast
https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/13/senate-warrant-americans-web-browsing-data/
======
kitotik
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.

~~~
toofy
> McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal
> election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.

So privacy for those in positions of power but not for us plebes.

~~~
np_tedious
Do they have to be viable candidates? I don't mind being in a permanent state
of casual campaigning

~~~
giancarlostoro
We can even make a political party out of it where everyone in the party is a
candidate.

~~~
analognoise
This has a very Slack vibe to it that I can dig.

~~~
analognoise
No love for the Church of the SubGenious?

~~~
giancarlostoro
I gave you an upvote in the previous comment because I knew what you were
talking about mainly due to Slackware's reference to Church of SubGenious. I
don't think many know what that is though.

For those curious:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius)

------
gkoberger
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.

~~~
Klonoar
>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.

Edit: a word.

~~~
trynewideas
For additional context, Bernie hasn't voted in any of the 10 roll call votes
so far in May.[1] He's not campaigning anymore. Hell, he was streaming on
Twitch this evening.

As noted up thread, the GOP would've just moved the goalposts by turning one
of their swing votes if there was any danger of him putting a vote in for
this. But he was batting .000 on the month going into today, so it was an easy
bet.

1:
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400...](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> As noted up thread, the GOP would've just moved the goalposts by turning one
> of their swing votes if there was any danger of him putting a vote in for
> this.

That's exactly why he should've showed up. The swing votes are swing votes
because voting that way is unpopular in their district. It makes it hurt more
to do the wrong thing. "Meh, it would've passed anyway" lets the people doing
wrong get off too easy.

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
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.

~~~
rectang
On these max-out-surveillance votes, Dianne Feinstein poorly represents the
massive tech industry presence in her state.

~~~
acdha
Or does she represent companies like Google, Facebook, or Palantir who are
more concerned with pro-privacy laws cutting into their revenue? The politics
of tech industry workers are not identical to their management and the latter
steer a LOT more money into politics.

~~~
icelancer
It's more the entertainment industry in this case.

------
toofy
This is just backwards.

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
"People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be
afraid of their people."

100% agree that the tradeoff of power should be a loss of privacy.

~~~
toofy
It’s important to stress: They should happily answer with accurate and honest
data when asked.

We have hit a wall where our leaders react with vitriol when asked what
they’re doing; mcconnell’s pushing for an exemption for those in power,
pushing for them to have privacy while actively voting laws into place which
_drastically_ reduce ours should concern every single one of us–at least as
much as Snowden’s docs revealed to us.

------
djaque
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.

~~~
djaque
Whelp... I'm 0/2 for my senators. Here is my letter BTW, feel free to copy it
and use it to get in contact with your reps. Look up their votes here [1].

Dear Representative $NAY_VOTER,

I'm writing you to express my disappointment in your recent vote on May 13 to
reject Wyden amendment no. 1583. This amendment would have required law
enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing American's web
browsing data. Despite bipartisan support, the amendment failed to garner the
required 3/5 majority by only one vote.

The controversial language of section 215 of the Patriot Act provides the
government with broad powers to collect information related to federal
investigations. Unfortunately, that power extends to the warrant-less
collection of American's private information. This even includes innocent and
law-abiding citizens who's only relation to an investigation is that their
records are considered "relevant" in some manner.

Privacy reform is important now more than ever with the increasing role of
technology in our daily lives. Please give me your support in creating
meaningful oversight for our country's surveillance programs.

Sincerely,

Djaque

[1]
[https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00089#position)

~~~
A4ET8a8uTh0
2/2

For once, I don't have to be embarrassed about Duckworth.

~~~
yellowapple
2/2 here in Nevada, too.

------
rootusrootus
Of course! Wyden again! I'm really happy he is our senator. I wish there were
more like-minded people in congress.

Too bad he couldn't quite get all the necessary votes.

~~~
davidw
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...

------
thephyber
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.

[1]
[https://www.popvox.com/us/federal/bills/116/hr6172](https://www.popvox.com/us/federal/bills/116/hr6172)

[2] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-
bill/6172](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6172)

[3] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-
bill/342...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3421)

~~~
Rafuino
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).

------
Melting_Harps
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].

1: [https://www.ghostery.com/midnight/](https://www.ghostery.com/midnight/)

2: [https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/vpn-
bitcoin/](https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/vpn-bitcoin/)

~~~
quest88
Don't use VPN services:
[https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29](https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29)

~~~
brobinson
But, according to that link, you should be using one in this case:

"You are on a known-hostile network (eg. a public airport WiFi access point,
or an ISP that is known to use MITM), and you want to work around that."

An internet connection from an ISP operating under a government that logs your
browsing history is a "known-hostile network".

~~~
judge2020
This law would almost certainly be exercised via Google and not the ISP, which
can't see the contents of your browsing history anyways.

~~~
kitotik
But most ISPs will have DNS lookup records. Most users aren’t savvy enough to
set their own DNS servers. I’m not sure on the current status of DNS over
HTTPS, but I’d imagine .gov could just compel cloudflare or whoever to provide
logs.

~~~
zajio1am
Do ISPs generally have DNS lookup past records? That seems like something that
would be costly with little benefit. I run small ISP and only enable DNS
logging when tracing some problem.

~~~
judge2020
Apparently AT&T charges to prevent them from selling your data[0], which
almost certainly is DNS data and maybe SNI.

0: [https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2015/03/atts-...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2015/03/atts-plan-to-watch-your-web-browsing-and-what-you-can-do-
about-it/)

------
billme
Here’s the bill, might want to read it before commenting:

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-
bill/6172](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...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/yes-
section-215-expired-now-what)

------
null0pointer
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.

Please correct me if I have anything wrong.

------
ejstronge
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?

~~~
ABeeSea
Bernie decided to just not vote even though his vote would have changed the
outcome.

~~~
mc32
It’s a strange vote. I mean it’s completely bipartisan. And a couple on either
side and an independent abstained. Guess there was some good horse trading.

~~~
croon
Not that strange. McConnell knows all the votes before allowing a vote on
anything. Then he lets any R in sensitive states vote YAY up to <59 votes.

------
DrScump
This is a really sloppy article.

"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
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.

------
badrabbit
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.

Begining of the end, or end of the begining?

------
kitotik
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.

~~~
advisedwang
I imagine the intelligence community would try to interpret it as narrowly as
possible, ie just the literal URLs you visited and terms you sent to Google.

~~~
kitotik
Is this sarcasm?

Do members of the intelligence community have a history of wanting less
information than they can get?

~~~
thephyber
Your logic is inverse.

The thing at question was an amendment to add additional proof for access to
"internet browsing and search history" data, so if the "intelligence
community" defines that term as narrowly as possible, (assuming the "USA
FREEDOM Act", the bill which was to be amended, is renewed) then the potential
future restriction is applied to fewer data points.

------
pstuart
Shouldn't one's _personal_ data be a Fourth Amendment issue?

~~~
rayiner
It’s not your personal data. It’s Google’s log of requests made to and carried
out by Google’s servers. It’s not covered by the literal text of the fourth
amendment—which, as you correctly paraphrased, applies to one’s own person and
property. The fourth amendment was also never understood at the time it was
written to apply to third party business records, which is what your search
history is. (While we didn’t have search engines in 1789, we had all sorts of
commercial businesses, from banks to accountants to merchants, who kept
sensitive customer records. Indeed, for at least 400 years, such records have
been obtainable in civil suits with just a subpoena.)

I think it would be a _good idea_ to require a warrant in such cases. But it’s
not a 4th amendment issue.

~~~
Reelin
I'd go so far as to argue that the 4th amendment ought to be amended to apply
to such data. Such customer records may have been sensitive in the past, but
they've become far more personal and all encompassing.

~~~
rayiner
If we can’t even pass a law protecting such data—how can we amend the
constitution to the same effect?

------
throwlaplace
'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'

-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.

~~~
cle
How will finding someone to blame make the problem any better?

Finding fault isn’t useful here. Our mental energy is better spent finding
ways to fix the process and/or technologies.

~~~
throwlaplace
Where did I say blame? I essentially said we should take responsibility for
our part. So far I've seen many people say things like "it's not my problem I
only do as I'm told" absolving themselves of the responsibility of doing
anything to rectify the situation.

------
kag0
> 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.

~ John Steinbeck

------
oojojo
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](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll099.xml)

------
d0ne
Committing the initial capital to form a FEC recognized national political
party The Privacy Party to begin direct opposition to this and related
activities.

If you are interested in collaborating or learning more:

[https://theprivacyparty.org/](https://theprivacyparty.org/)

------
AmericanChopper
This article does an incredibly bad job of explaining the current status of
this law, and what is expected to happen next. Has the existing law expired?
Is it being replaced with something equally bad? Is the replacement subject to
further change? Am I just bad at reading?

~~~
billme
Link to the bill & the EFF’s analysis of it is here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173491](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173491)

------
0xDEADBEF
Would a VPN basically make even a warrant useless in obtaining browsing data
from your ISP?

~~~
pmorici
No, it just puts your VPN provider in the position your ISP was in assuming
they both keep similar records.

~~~
0xDEADBEF
Well in that case, I would be OK since the VPN I use (ProtonVPN) doesn't keep
any logs.

~~~
tsukurimashou
most VPN will tell you they don't keep log, which is probably not true

~~~
0xDEADBEF
Why would they? There is 0 incentive and are not legally required to from
Switzerland law.

------
mnm1
Too bad. Sounds like they could have passed it if certain senators weren't
taking a vacation from defending our rights. Quite disappointing really.

------
hackerbabz
What is the court precedent that lets congress decide whether a warrant is
needed for a specific thing?

It’s a thing being searched and seized...what’s the argument?

------
armenarmen
Is there a list of who voted against this?

~~~
jadell
Yes there is:
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2020/s89](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2020/s89)

------
oojojo
Democrats rejected = More use of FISA warrants to Spy on Americans, with no
oversight. Woot !

------
bryanrasmussen
normally narrowly rejects is a construction used to indicate something bad was
going to be done, so narrowly rejecting it is still bad, which I mean I guess
this was still bad but not because the rejection was narrow.

------
Descartes1
And if you use an offshore VPN?

------
tsukurimashou
orbital VPNs that don't have to comply to a specific country laws when

------
bluedays
Thanks Bernie!

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

------
kenneth
Interesting to note that one of the reasons this did not pass is Bernie
Sanders' failure to support the amendment.

Keep that in mind next time someone riles about how Bernie is a champion for
the average American. I, for one, am glad he will never be President.

------
macawfish
Doesn't it have to go back to the House anyway? Am I missing something? I
thought that bills needed to pass in both the House and Senate before they can
be signed into law?

Now in the House they'll have an opportunity to reject the bill with
McConnell's original amendment, which is obviously dispicable. This all seems
like political theater, like Senator Schumer allowed a vote on this today
knowing Sanders would be out. This way, the GOP looks slimy and the House has
more reason to simply reject the bill as is and Bernie Sanders can be the
scapegoat --> more support for Biden. If this amendment had passed, it'd have
been harder for the House to reject the bill.

(Sanders was out today with Ilhan Omar advocating for international debt
relief for indebted countries. )

~~~
coldcode
I read it was merely a replacement of something already in, and thus does not
need to be returned to the house.

~~~
dragonwriter
The House has already passed the surveillance renewal bill, so unless the
Senate passes the House bill with at least one amendment (so it's not
technically the same bill), it doesn't have to go back to the House.

~~~
macawfish
I've been reading that Mitch McConnell's changes, the ones that would
expressly allow warrantless surveillance, are a "new amendment". Wouldn't that
kind of reporting imply that this amendment hasn't yet been cleared in the
house?

~~~
vxNsr
Democrats are federally elected officials and are of course gonna vote yes on
his amendment. Just bec they wear a blue tie it doesn't suddenly make them
less self serving.

