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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.