mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-04-13, 03:09   #749
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

8,753 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
Haha, so the next cov-like crisis will result in an interdiction to wear exaggerated colored t-shirts? (kinda waiting for it... )

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2020-04-13 at 03:10
LaurV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-15, 11:15   #750
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

11·317 Posts
Default

Senate votes to renew federal surveillance powers
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has passed legislation that would extend a set of expired federal surveillance tools designed to help law enforcement officials track suspected terrorists and spies, moving one step closer to reviving them.

The legislation passed the Senate 80-16 on Thursday. The bill is a bipartisan compromise that has the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Justice Department, which had been part of the negotiations, said it appreciated that the expired authorities had been reauthorized but expressed disappointment with the tweaked version of the bill that ultimately passed.
<snip>
McConnell urged senators to vote against amendments altering the bill. He said the legislation was already a "delicate balance" and warned changing it could mean the underlying provisions won’t be renewed.

"We cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good when key authorities are currently sitting expired and unusable," McConnell said on the Senate floor before the vote.

But senators adopted one amendment anyway, with more than three-fourths of the chamber supporting it. Another amendment came just one vote short of the 60 votes needed.

The successful amendment, from Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would boost third-party oversight to protect individuals in some surveillance cases. It was adopted 77-19.

In a statement, Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi said the department appreciates the Senate’s vote but that, as amended, the legislation "would unacceptably degrade our ability to conduct surveillance of terrorists, spies and other national security threats."

The proposal that fell just short of 60 votes would have prevented federal law enforcement from obtaining internet browsing information or search history without seeking a warrant.

"Should law-abiding Americans have to worry about their government looking over their shoulders from the moment they wake up in the morning and turn on their computers to when they go to bed at night?" said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. "I believe the answer is no. But that’s exactly what the government has the power to do without our amendment."
<snip>
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-15, 22:54   #751
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

5×19×29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
Isn't it great how lawmakers are always "criticizing" this sort of draconian overreach, yet never seeming to do anything meaningful to curb it? Like repeatedly taking the NSA's word for it that they've stopped some form of court-kiboshed data collection without having any kind of independent oversight capacity, then acting "shocked and surprised" when it later emerges that the collection either did not in fact stop, or was replaced by something even more overreaching. Not holding officials accountable for lying to Congress is the tell that Congress mainly wants to virtue-signal, with a few individual exceptions they are fully on board with the Surveillance State paradigm.
In response to Dr. Sardonicus' post, just want to repost this from Ernst from 10 months ago.

Last fiddled with by garo on 2020-05-15 at 22:54
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-16, 23:59   #752
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

2CFE16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garo View Post
In response to Dr. Sardonicus' post, just want to repost this from Ernst from 10 months ago.
And observe a notable-by-his-absence where-have-you-gone-Joe-DiMaggio hero of the progressive resistance:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ent-fails.html
Quote:
The Senate on Thursday took up a key bill to reauthorize domestic surveillance programs while making changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with several substantial amendments on the line. One of the amendments, introduced by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and Republican Sen. Steve Daines, would have required authorities to obtain a warrant to access internet users’ search histories and browsing information. Uh, yes, pass that??

The amendment, however, met an extremely Senate grave: It “failed” with 59 yeas to 37 nays, one short of the 60-vote threshold it needed to overcome the streamlined vestigial filibuster.
Sanders absents self, amendment fails by 1 vote. "Progressive only when it really doesn't matter" seems apt.

Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 2020-05-17 at 21:07
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-17, 20:40   #753
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

5·19·29 Posts
Default

Indeed. I noticed that with some disappointment.
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-18, 12:33   #754
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

11×317 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
And observe a notable-by-his-absence where-have-you-gone-Joe-DiMaggio hero of the progressive resistance:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ent-fails.html

Sanders absents self, amendment fails by 1 vote. "Progressive only when it really doesn't matter" seems apt.
To be fair, Sanders didn't just duck out on this one vote. The last time he voted in the Senate was Senate Vote 80 on March 25. He did not vote on Senate Vote 81 on May 4, or any other vote through the most recent, Senate Vote 92 on May 14.

Patty Murray of Washington also would have voted for the amendment (Senate Vote 89 on May 13 2020), but was on her way back to DC from WA when that vote was called. She was present on the 14th for Senate Vote 92, passage of H.R. 6172 (USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020). She voted Nay.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-18, 15:22   #755
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

53038 Posts
Default

Still no remote voting?
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-18, 15:58   #756
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

5·11·157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garo View Post
Still no remote voting?
Imagine when things go Back to Normal™. Remote voting, if normallized will give them more time to fund raise, kiss babies, take credit for things, and otherwise campaign. Is that advisable?
Should they be allowed to vote if they haven't been informed about the bill?

2022: A vote comes up like say, the PATRIOT act. A rep is out in their distract at the opening of the new parking lot at an Amazon warehouse (they are there saying how they are bringing 500 jobs to the city, while 5000 jobs have been lost by small businesses to AZ). Their congressional phone beeps. It is time to vote. They see the name "PATRIOT Act" and thinks, 'I got to vote for this, don't want the other side to call me un-PATRIOT-ic.' They vote in the affirm. And get back to the ribbon cutting. After the vote when they look at it they get buyer's remorse.

Sound good?
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-18, 18:30   #757
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

5×19×29 Posts
Default

You are making a big assumption that they currently read the bills before voting on them. Of course I meant remote voting while the pandemic is on.
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-23, 20:40   #758
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

2·13·443 Posts
Default

The EARN IT Bill Is the Government’s Plan to Scan Every Message Online | Electronic Frontier Foundation

So the same level of privacy users of Gmail and other Google 'products' currently enjoy?

And note the Spirit of Bipartisanship™ on full display, as it is for most all of the most toxic government deeds. There is only one War|Surveillance|Corporate|Wall-Street party in Washington, and if voting were able to change that fact, it would've been abolished by said party long ago.
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-18, 19:50   #759
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

2·13·443 Posts
Default

Dems Urged to Support Possible Pardon by Trump for Snowden | Consortiumnews

Oh, golly, look which prominent Team D member loudly objects to the idea of a pardon:
Quote:
One high-profile Democrat who rejected Trump’s floating a pardon for Snowden is Susan Rice, national security adviser under the Obama administration.

Rice’s response on Twitter — “I. Just. Can’t. Congratulations GOP. This is who you are now.” — were seized upon by surveillance state critics including Glenn Greenwald, who was among the team of journalists that first reported on the Snowden revelations.
Quote:
National Security apparatchiks like @AmbassadorRice (no longer an Ambassador) have wanted Snowden in prison for years because he exposed how they secretly and illegally converted the internet into their spying playground.

As for her claim that pardoning Snowden is a GOP view: https://t.co/NpQ11xwttX pic.twitter.com/LjePsz1T2Y

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 16, 2020

I really don’t understand this way of thinking. After four years in which so many democratic institutions have been gutted or repurposed for abuse and cruelty, *this* is what gets you—the possibility that Trump might pardon a whistleblower? https://t.co/woSj5n9qZV

— Jameel Jaffer (@JameelJaffer) August 16, 2020
No wonder Rice was high on Joe surveillance-lovin' Biden's shortlist of women-of-color VP candidates ... because women of color are inherently 'woke' and could never be odious neocon warmongers and NatSec-state boosters like the Dick Cheneys and John Boltons of this world, right?

Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 2020-08-18 at 19:52
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm rich AND on a government check. jasong jasong 18 2013-08-12 18:21
How does proper government manifest in regulation? cheesehead Soap Box 10 2011-04-17 02:29

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:42.

Wed Sep 30 00:42:16 UTC 2020 up 19 days, 21:53, 0 users, load averages: 2.17, 1.96, 1.75

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.