
Senate rejects FBI bid for warrantless access to internet browsing histories - spenvo
http://www.zdnet.com/article/senate-rejects-fbi-bid-for-warrantless-access-to-internet-browsing-histories/
======
makecheck
This is the thing I hate about the congress: they can be as efficient or
inefficient as they please and nothing seems to be able to affect them.

Terrorist? New legislation comes to the floor _immediately_ with the aim to
curtail this liberty or that one. Not only that but everyone seems to actually
_show up_ , and there is enthusiasm about voting.

New Supreme Court justice needed, the appointment of whom is _literally the
senate’s assigned job_? Nah, we’re gonna drag our feet for months and months
and months. And we are never going to actually get around to _doing_ one of
the few things that we are clearly _assigned_ to do. And there will be no
repercussions.

I’ve never had a job in my life where I didn’t have a manager checking in at
least every week or two to see what’s up. I’ve never had a job where I
wouldn’t have been _fired_ if I refused to do something for _months_. For
congresspeople, there should be provisions that require them to do every
assigned task in a very clear time frame; any who “selectively” do their jobs
should be fired.

~~~
protomyth
> New Supreme Court justice needed, the appointment of whom is literally the
> senate’s assigned job?

No Senate in a Presidential election year will ever allow a vote on a Justice
when the Senate and President are of different parties. It hasn't been done in
the past, and it won't be done in the future. The Court is still doing
business with 8, as it has in the past and probably will in the future.

~~~
dtparr
Wasn't Anthony Kennedy confirmed in 88? Nominated by Reagan with a Democratic
Senate?

And Rehnquist in 72 (associate justice), nominated by Nixon, again, a
Democratic senate?

~~~
protomyth
Kennedy was actually going for a spot that started in 87 with the failed Bork
nomination. Calling that an election year nomination is a bit of a stretch
since they rejected the first candidate. In fact, he was sworn in on February
8, 1988.

Rehnquist was confirmed on December 10, 1971 not in 1972.

Let's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about
Justices in an election year (no).

~~~
deciplex
> _Let 's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about
> Justices in an election year (no)._

Yes, let's try to remember, since you have apparently forgotten:

> _" Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a
> successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic
> Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a
> process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted
> by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not
> fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself._

> _" Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of
> constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a
> partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both
> ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme
> Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns
> at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the
> practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a
> nominee until after the November election is completed._

> _" Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an
> attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be
> permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if
> that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider
> holding hearings until after the election._ Instead, it would be our
> pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is,
> action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the
> election campaign is over.

So, yeah.

I mean, you can argue that he wasn't saying it in good faith, and that _if_ a
Justice had resigned or died and _if_ Bush had taken Biden at his word to
consider his nominee after the election, that _when_ Bush lost the election
and _if_ he put forward a nominee at that point, that Biden would have gone
back on his word (which, I'll remind, was a matter of public record not a
private agreement or anything). You can make that argument, and since none of
that actually happened and I can't peer into Biden's soul - there is not much
I can say to refute it, such is the nature of pure supposition.

But, Biden made that speech much closer to the election, and was speaking in
hypotheticals as well. Summarizing his argument (which I happen to disagree
with myself, btw) as being equivalent to what most GOP Senators are saying now
where they are not going to consider any Obama nominee no matter what, ever
(not to mention that they had plenty of time to do so before the "election
season" for Senate office) rises well above mere disingenuousness - it is a
straight-up lie and you either know it or you're a fool.

Now, there are Senators in the GOP who are calling to consider Garland during
the lame duck. Good for them, though it would be nice if they would say it a
little louder. Also they are not, as far as I know, in the majority (in saying
it - I have no doubt the Senate will move to confirm Garland if Hillary wins
the election, though whether Garland withdraws his name at that point will be
very interesting to see).

~~~
protomyth
Here's the whole speech
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo&feature=youtu.be)

He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election.
Listen to the speech, and you I have not forgotten as I can. The Senate GOP
has been very loud in saying that its a no go.

~~~
deciplex
Yes, put off until after the election, and then the nominee considered at that
point. There are a few Republican Senators who have publicly gone on record as
being receptive to that, but on the whole Republicans in the Senate have made
it clear they do not intend to consider any SCOTUS nominee from Obama, period.

Also, this is a Senate that has very consistently blocked Obama's other
judicial appointments. Biden didn't take part in that kind of shit back in the
80s and 90s, either.

~~~
protomyth
> Biden didn't take part in that kind of shit back in the 80s and 90s, either.

What? He very much did participate in not considering appointments to the
federal bench.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appoin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies)

~~~
deciplex
hmm ctrl-f "biden": zero results

Of course as a Senate Democrat he did take part in any blocking of judicial
appointments by Bush where applicable, which did not rise to the level of the
Republican blocking of Obama appointments, but this source hardly paints him
as the sort of, I don't know, judge-appointment-blocking ninja which I guess
in your mind he's made a career out of. And it certainly doesn't support your
original wrong assertion that Biden threatened to block SCOTUS nominees during
an election year, back in 1992.

Here's something he also said during that same speech:

> _I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence
> between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the
> White House and for the Senate. Therefore I stand by my position, Mr.
> President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or
> moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my
> support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter._

Garland was approved unanimously by the Senate for his current appointment,
and Obama has made every attempt to reach out to Senate Republicans. Every
criteria laid out by Biden back then, has been met. So no, this GOP
obstruction does not have precedent or justification across the aisle, or it
at least does not have it where you claim it does. Look somewhere else.

And let's not forget _it 's a shitty precedent to have_. The Constitution says
nothing about "except in an election year" for fucks sake, and the American
people most certainly did "decide" back when they re-elected Obama in 2012.
For that matter, given his current approval rating, they have not changed
their mind since then, either.

------
bpchaps
Posted this in the other thread about this. I think it's important enough to
paste here:

If anybody wants to do something about this with me and others, start sending
Foia requests for similar information to your local and state governments.
You'll find that there is a huge amount of aversion towards releasing things
like call logs and email. Push on and on and you'll eventually get what you're
looking for. Highlighting the absurdities of these laws through civil
reciprocation may just go a long way.

If all goes as best as it can go, I should have Chicago's mayor's office's dns
resolution logs tomorrow. Just so I can limit an email search since they
consider it too difficult to search for three companies in their email records
for a single week. It's taken a year and a half to get this far, but it takes
minutes for them to do the same.

This is absurd.

This isn't a place for journalists anymore. None I've talked to are ever
willing to do anything similar because of the time it takes to get a request
fulfilled. Don't be like them, and just persist, dammit.

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTR...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTRN8n876KL8aXYYu5it8Lg0g8)

------
privong
This is important:

> Mitch McConnell (R-KY) switched his vote at the last minute. He submitted a
> motion to reconsider the vote following the defeat. A new vote may be set
> for later on Wednesday.

So while it didn't advance this morning, it will likely come up for another
vote later today. It hasn't been "rejected" per se, but has at least
experienced a (potentially short) setback.

~~~
jack12
It required 60 votes, and received 59 (officially 58 because McConnell
switched his vote to retain the ability to reintroduce it). It only needs one
more vote to pass, in other words. Feinstein was absent today, but will
presumably be vote number 60 next time.

~~~
tiles
Are any of the 59 likely to switch?

(No wonder Feinstein's office was so dismissive of my call today.)

------
wheaties
...and they will keep trying to get it until someone higher than them either
forbids it outright or we change their culture from within. It is clear that a
cultural change at the FBI, CA or NSA is decades away, leaving us only the
first option.

------
JumpCrisscross
Note that this bill's sponsor, John McCain, is being primaried by a Fourth
Amendment proponent Kelli Ward [1]. The Democrat candidate, who is polling
ahead of McCain, doesn't mention the Fourth Amendment under her issues page
[2].

[1]
[http://www.kelliward.com/fourth_amendment](http://www.kelliward.com/fourth_amendment)

[2] [http://www.kirkpatrickforsenate.com](http://www.kirkpatrickforsenate.com)

~~~
protomyth
Last poll I saw, it was a dead heat in one and widely varied in others. It
must be a bit worrisome since Pres. George W. Bush do a campaign stop for
McCain.

------
rm_-rf_slash
My cynical opinion is that the provisions of this bill will be quietly tacked
onto a budget bill and passed without debate.

~~~
throwawaysocks
They already _are_ tacked on to a budget bill. From TFA:

 _Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the amendment as an add-on to the
commerce, justice, and science appropriations bill earlier this week_

~~~
wickedlogic
Waiting for the reworded provision that excludes members of congress's
personal machines in 5,4...

------
asksol
Does it really apply to just browser histories? Does it mean they can take
your computers without warrant to get to this history, or does it mean ISPs
will have to sniff traffic to extract URLs visited and keep a log of them (for
how long?).

It doesn't make much sense to me, unless they are carefully wording this into
something that seems reasonable to the public ("I'll just use private mode, no
deal") when it really means monitoring all our internet traffic. But then why
is the media repeating it?

------
hobs
I love govtrack for the simplicity in which you can contact your
senator/congresspeople:
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/s108](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/s108)

I called mine today because Amy Klobuchar should not be voting yes to this
garbage.

------
coroutines
I was initially confused thinking "how would they get the NAT information from
my home router.. from the ISP?", then I remembered some providers do NAT at
their level now. Sucked when AT&T did it - made it impossible to view the
entry-level IP cameras we had remotely (well, I could have set up a VPN...)

------
droopybuns
Good journalism doesn't bury the raw material. Go back to journalism school,
zdnet.

For those who want to read it- only took me about 15 minutes to get to the
following:

The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To amend section 2709 of title 18,
United States Code, to clarify that the Government may obtain a specified set
of electronic communication transactional records under that section, and to
make permanent the authority for individual terrorists to be treated as agents
of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) At
the appropriate place , insert the following:

SEC. lll. Section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
subsection (b) and inserting the following: ‘‘(b) REQUIRED CERTIFICATION.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his
or her designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at
Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office
designated by the Director, may, using a term that specifically identifies a
person, entity, telephone number, or account as the basis for a request,
request information and records described in paragraph (2) of a person or
entity, but not the contents of an electronic communication, if the Director
(or his or her designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic
communication service provider to which the request is made that the
information and records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to
protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is
not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ‘‘(2) OBTAINABLE TYPES OF
INFORMATION AND RECORDS.—The information and records described in this
paragraph are the following: ‘‘(A) Name, physical address, e-mail address,
telephone number, instrument number, and other similar account identifying
information. ‘‘(B) Account number, login history, length of service (including
start date), types of service, and means and sources of payment for service
(including any card or bank account information). ‘‘(C) Local and long
distance toll billing records. ‘‘(D) Internet Protocol (commonly known as
‘IP’) address or other network address, including any temporarily assigned IP
or network address, communication addressing, routing, or transmission
information, including any network address translation information (but
excluding cell tower information), and session times and durations for an
electronic communication.’’. SEC. lll. Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by
striking subsection (b).

If you are calling your representatives, the relevant points of reference are:

On June 20th, Senator McCain introduced an amendment to section 2709 of title
18 that allows the director of the FBI to obtain (among other things) internet
protocol records of american citizens without a warrant.

If you're inclined to, I'd suggest calling them and underlining the importance
of the warrant process for approving collection of this data, rather than the
FBI's opinion that it is important.

J. Edgar Hoover taught us that the FBI cannot be trusted with this kind of
open-ended privilege. Even with judicial review, the FBI still misbehaves.
Let's not make it easy for them to be lazy.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/feb/19/aaron-
swa...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/feb/19/aaron-swartz-fbi-
tracked-classified-documents)

