Section 702
- Thread starter Spartans9312
- Start date
Whoopty doo.
I have zero to hide and have zero expectation of privacy when I leave my home. I would be far more worried about any weaknesses in networks as a result.
You should worry about legislators who would use these new regulations to govern what you do inside your home.
You have stated you go to a bar and use your laptop…if you use their Wi-Fi the government can collect that data…without a warrant. If they want your information they should need a warrant to do so
If you don't wish to enforce your Constitutional rights, you may waive them as you wish. However, you cannot waive someone else's rights, even if they don't need the protection of those rights.
I fear our gov’t & what they will do with my info much less than foreign actors within our society. If them casting this wide net makes us less vulnerable to bad actors within or without our borders, have at it. I suspect they have whatever info they want anyway, but changes in laws make it easier to act upon the info legally.
Though, it's kind of creepy when my wife and I are watching TV, a commercial comes on, one of us comments on the product, and 10 minutes later it shows up on her social media.
I'm not expert enough to judge the different versions of this bill on a technical level. Not sure anyone here is, to be honest.
But the version passed by the intelligence committee is basically a rubber stamp on the intelligence community's current practices. So....I think we can all come to a judgement based on that.
Was I not clear?
When I am away from home, I have zero expectation of privacy. In that you do or ever did reflects a naivety or stubbornness on how the world works.
In that we now have multiple devices that give us information from all over the world in a matter milliseconds also means others could tap into that information. No different than when they figured out how to tap phone lines or triangulate audio waves. The more access we have to information when we're away from home, the more access others could have to us.
Did you need to read about that legislation to come to that realization?
That legislation just made it much harder for businesses to say no, and that helps the government track down people who intend to do harm or have done harm. I'm not worried about the government spying on me in large part because I have nothing to hide from the government.
If I was running a business for which I worried about intellectual property, I would not be using public networks, not without a VPN and packet encryption, and that point there isn't much anyone could to do to my data casually.
As any of this relates to businesses,
This is a complicated balancing test.
For those who are opposed, does it matter to you whether the data can or is anonymized?
As for the notion that you abandon all expectation of privacy once you leave the house, that’s not an accurate summary of Fourth Amendment law.
I’m reminded of Posner’s quip, though: the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. He meant we have to read and interpret it so as to allow the nation to continue to exist. Again, not sure how this bill or what it seeks govt access to affects our national security. But I don’t trust the CIA left to its own devices to scrupulously follow the law.
Was Mike Lee in Congress when the Patriot Act came about? I'd bet large sums of money that he would have voted in favor of it if he was. I'd also bet that most of the "Republicans" here were fine with the Patriot Act when it was implemented.
I don’t know about here, but I do remember republicans telling people “if you don’t have anything to hide…”
That's used by both sides as they work to slowly erode your individual rights to centralize more power, build ground swell support against political opponents, explain bad legislation like the Patriot act, or some combination of those.
The Patriot Act was set to expire in 2005, and though there have been revisions, addendums, etc, it effectively gets extended. Like any legislation dealing with surveillance, it's defined by its abuses or potential abuses.
It's typically the party not in power who complains about this the most, but I go back to my main point earlier, anyone who expects privacy outside of their home is pretty naive.
Good, I'm on the right track if that's your reaction. Sorry you only see the side you don't care for saying dumb crap like "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" when they crap all over the 4th amendment.
I mean, I understand this app was designed (probably) for spouses/couples and parents/kids to monitor each other in an agreeable situation, but this seems kinda dicey to me...
www.newsweek.com
Mike Johnson porn "monitoring" app accused of being used to jail people
Court documents show that Covenant Eyes is often used by probation officers, sometimes to send parolees back to prison.
www.newsweek.com
Wow. All kinds of potential issues outside of a voluntary opt-in, especially as it relates to privacy and security on a work device. Having a second device for personal use only kind of defeat the purpose of the app.I mean, I understand this app was designed (probably) for spouses/couples and parents/kids to monitor each other in an agreeable situation, but this seems kinda dicey to me...
Mike Johnson porn "monitoring" app accused of being used to jail people
Court documents show that Covenant Eyes is often used by probation officers, sometimes to send parolees back to prison.
No wonder flip phones are making a comeback!
That's a joke Bloom
Good move by Google
time.com
Google Will Stop Providing Law Enforcement Data on Which Users Were Near a Crime
The company said location data will soon be saved directly on users’ devices, blocking Google from seeing it and, by extension, blocking law enforcement demanding that information.
time.com
Similar threads
