Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday March 26 2018, @11:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the does-any-other-nation-do-this? dept.

Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd

UPDATE, March 23, 2018: President Donald Trump signed the $1.3 trillion government spending bill—which includes the CLOUD Act—into law Friday morning.

"People deserve the right to a better process." Those are the words of Jim McGovern, representative for Massachusetts and member of the House of Representatives Committee on Rules, when, after 8:00 PM EST on Wednesday, he and his colleagues were handed a 2,232-page bill to review and approve for a floor vote by the next morning.

In the final pages of the bill—meant only to appropriate future government spending—lawmakers snuck in a separate piece of legislation that made no mention of funds, salaries, or budget cuts. Instead, this final, tacked-on piece of legislation will erode privacy protections around the globe.

[...] As we wrote before, the CLOUD Act is a far-reaching, privacy-upending piece of legislation that will:

  • Enable foreign police to collect and wiretap people's communications from U.S. companies, without obtaining a U.S. warrant.
  • Allow foreign nations to demand personal data stored in the United States, without prior review by a judge.
  • Allow the U.S. president to enter "executive agreements" that empower police in foreign nations that have weaker privacy laws than the United States to seize data in the United States while ignoring U.S. privacy laws.
  • Allow foreign police to collect someone's data without notifying them about it.
  • Empower U.S. police to grab any data, regardless if it's a U.S. person's or not, no matter where it is stored.

Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflected-cloud-act-passes

See also: As the CLOUD Act sneaks into the omnibus, big tech butts heads with privacy advocates


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by black6host on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:49AM (10 children)

    by black6host (3827) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:49AM (#658767) Journal

    Well, I was following along until the end there... I don't believe the NRA, or anyone else with any clout, is pushing for the free sale and acquisition of Claymore mines. At least not here in the states.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:14AM (8 children)

    Well, I was following along until the end there... I don't believe the NRA, or anyone else with any clout, is pushing for the free sale and acquisition of Claymore mines. At least not here in the states.

    A fair point. However, that's just a logical consequence of what AC was saying (and seconded by this AC post [soylentnews.org]):

    The biggest wrinkle in that plan is the 2nd Amendment, which is why there has been such an enormous and sustained push to curb the Common Man's ownership of that tool of liberty which is so aptly named: "The Great Equalizer".

    By that reasoning, it's clear that a shotgun or a rifle won't equalize anything against tanks, jet bombers, cruise missiles and tactical nukes. If what the AC is advocating ("the great equalizer") is truly necessary, free access (well, if you can pay, that is) to such things are critical to ensuring that an oppressive government can be countered and removed.

    If those who believe that arming themselves against the day that they need to rise up against their tyrannical oppressors, they will need appropriate arms to do so. And rifles, shotguns and handguns are little use against cruise missiles, howitzers, smart bombs and tactical nukes.

    If what you say is true, it's clear that support for gun ownership has nothing to do with guarding against government oppression. If it was, those patriotic, freedom-loving folks would be demanding access to those sorts of things under the second amendment.

    If I misunderstood your point, please enlighten me and accept my apologies.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:23AM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:23AM (#658785)

      Uncle Sam's advanced technology is worthless against an ideological guerrilla militia; Uncle Sam just can't seem to win a war.

      "See you in Paradise."

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:42AM (5 children)

        Uncle Sam's advanced technology is worthless against an ideological guerrilla militia; Uncle Sam just can't seem to win a war.

        "See you in Paradise."

        Go ahead and prove me wrong. And when I see your photo in a news report about our glorious new leader who will lead us out of oppression from the evil gub'mint, I'll know I was wrong.

        More likely, that same photo will be in a piece about some "nutjob militia" guy being killed or imprisoned, and I'll know I was right.

        So go ahead and surprise me. I guess I'll be one of the first "up against the wall' but I'll take that chance.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:53AM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:53AM (#658796)

          I didn't bother finishing your comment. You're arguing a fake point.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:14AM (3 children)

            What other conclusion could I draw, based on the assertions provided?

            Calling my snark a "straw man" and a "fake point" just shows that you have nothing useful to add to the discussion.

            Why are my sarcastic comments straw men and fake points? What arguments do you have to support those assertions?

            Do you have any evidence to support such arguments?

            I suspect that I'll get another response devoid of semantic value from you. Or none at all. Which are equivalent anyway.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:21AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:21AM (#658818)

              See here. [soylentnews.org]

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:30AM (1 child)

                A weak argument, easily refuted (which I already did [soylentnews.org]).

                See. I can link to previous comments too. I see you learned something new. Maybe we can work on teaching you to tie your shoes next.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:36AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:36AM (#658826)

                  I can't find a refutation anywhere.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @10:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @10:12AM (#658914)

        In the Middle East, Uncle Sam has spotty intelligence and few people that it can trust. Same with Vietnam and other places. Killing these people is not hard at the outset, but open-ended and impossible objectives related to occupation make losing a war inevitable.

        On the Home Front, Uncle Sam is able to effectively infiltrate domestic extremist/militia/political groups with undercover officers and paid informants. The feds are able to exploit the natural weaknesses, inadequacies, and internal divisions of these groups. They have had practice doing this for decades despite these groups being very minor threats. For controlling everyone else, there's bread and circuses.

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:05PM

    by Bot (3902) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:05PM (#658931) Journal

    > I don't believe the NRA, or anyone else with any clout, is pushing for the free sale and acquisition of Claymore mines

    darn

    --
    Account abandoned.