
Proposed amendment to expand Patriot Act with warrantless access to web activity - save_ferris
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/congress-plans-to-expand-patriot-act-with-doj-access-to-your-web-browsing-and-search-activity-without-a-warrant/
======
dang
Proposed bills rarely go anywhere, so we mostly treat them as off topic on HN
([https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20bills&sort=byDate&type=comment)).

Is there something about this case that warrants special treatment? The
article seems to be from an advocacy source, which is fine, but means it has
an incentive to make this sound more likely than it is. The title is an
example—"Congress to" is much stronger than "amendment introduced". (Edit:
submitted title was "Congress to expand Patriot Act access to browsing/search
history without warrant". I've changed it.)

Edit: after reading the article, I can see that this is more than an ordinary
bill proposal. But I still can't tell if it clears the bar to be on HN's front
page. See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172319](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172319)
below.

Edit: after all this, another article ended up taking the story to the front
page:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172870](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172870).
That was probably the best outcome.

~~~
save_ferris
Just curious dang, how would you have edited the title to satisfy HN
requirements?

Here's the original:

Congress plans to expand Patriot Act with DOJ access to your web browsing and
search activity without a warrant

Here's mine:

Congress to expand Patriot Act access to browsing/search history without
warrant

Seeing how you would edit this title would help me write better titles in the
future. I just didn't know how else to edit this given the character
limitation.

~~~
philwelch
“Congress” as a body has done no such thing. Some members of Congress have
introduced a bill. Congress is a bicameral legislature whose members debate
and vote on a variety of proposed bills, many of which are at cross purposes
to each other. None of these actions are the actions of Congress as a whole
until the bill passes.

~~~
save_ferris
That’s fair, how would you concisely convey that in an HN article title?

Edit: my only point is that it’s incredibly difficult to post articles on HN
without title modification criticism. I don’t disagree with your semantic
point, but how do you post that article within the HN character limit while
simultaneously conveying your point?

~~~
philwelch
“Bill introduced to...”

Which really gets back to dang’s point, which is basically, “so what?”. Bills
get introduced all the time and most of them don’t go anywhere.

~~~
save_ferris
> “Bill introduced to”

That’s great, but how do you fit that into the original title? I encourage you
to try it as an exercise, that title was incredibly hard to fit within HN’s
requirements. Your suggestion adds over a dozen characters over “Congress”.
Seriously, it’s not easy to edit these titles sometimes.

> “so what?”

Well, if a bill isn’t worth discussing until after it becomes law, then how do
bills like SOPA or any other recent and unpopular bills get stopped? If you
don’t talk about it beforehand, how is discussing the bill after passage more
effective?

------
ahelwer
One of the more insightful passages in the unabomber manifesto (worth reading,
especially for technologists) details how technology-driven encroachments on
our freedom are inevitable because to stop this people must be continually
motivated to avoid a bad thing happening to them, which will never be as
powerful as how others are motivated to achieve a good thing happening to
them. Privacy advocacy at this point is nearly 100% defensive; it really is
exhausting to keep up with the various was in which it is being eroded, let
alone participate in actually stopping this erosion from taking place.

~~~
k1t
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to
the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal
vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence
of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

– John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election for Lord Mayor of
Dublin, 1790.

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

------
erentz
So 10 Democrats joined with the GOP to vote against the amendment from Wyden &
Daines that would have prohibited the FBI warrantless surveillance of web
browser history: Carper, Casey, Feinstein, Hassan, Jones, Kaine, Manchin,
Shaheen, Warner and Whitehorse.

------
JoshTriplett
The Senate is attempting to pass this. What are the chances that it'll pass
the House?

This seems unlikely to be successfully blocked in the Senate (though it's
still worth trying; different arguments might work with different senators,
talk to yours). But it would help to rapidly talk to representatives to ensure
that they vote "no" on the overall act.

Of course, the whole thing should be a "no" with or without this amendment;
the Patriot Act should just die unrenewed. But if you can't convince your
representative to vote no no matter what, try to convince them to vote no
specifically if this amendment or anything like it is in the bill.

~~~
badRNG
> the Patriot Act should just die unrenewed.

I'm confused as to why it doesn't. It seems like there is largely bipartisan
opposition to it among the public, why is it still receiving support from both
parties in congress?

~~~
JoshTriplett
This seems like as good a time as any to ask your congressperson if they're
voting no, and if not, why not. (And report the answers so others can see
them.)

------
xenospn
Seems like it didn't pass?

~~~
schimmy_changa
It's really hard to tell (this is very confusing:
[https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/senate-vote-fisa-
aut...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/senate-vote-fisa-
authorities/index.html)) but it looks like the _amendment_ by a pro-privacy
senator (Wyden, D-OR) failed, not the overall authorization of the Patriot
Act, so the concern on behalf of privacy is still valid

~~~
bitxbitxbitcoin
Thanks, that is a good succint summary of what has happened.

The USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act is the bill that would renew the Patriot
Act and (anti-privacy) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell added an
amendment that would allow warrantless access to internet history. (pro-
privacy) Senator Wyden tried to add another amendment requiring a warrant but
that was defeated a few hours ago by 1 vote.

------
james-mcelwain
The legislation to block this was defeated by a single vote -- notably, Bernie
Sanders was absent and could have voted to defeat this.

~~~
GoodJokes
VP breaks a tie.

~~~
james-mcelwain
Not a tie, 60 votes.

------
geggam
Wish there was an insightful comment to make here about hope for the future
but I just cant think of one

~~~
krapp
Just make a reference to 1984 or Brave New World, or copy-paste that Ben
Franklin quote about trading liberty for security, that's what's usually done.

