Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

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

MrPlow writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 72 comments | Search Discussion
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: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:49PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:49PM (#659018)

    Trying to make sure that violent nutjobs find it difficult to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons with huge (30-100 rounds) magazines and bump stocks is perfectly reasonable.

    stopping *actually insane* people from owning *any* gun is perfectly constitutional. unfortunately, you seditious morons want to use oppositional defiance disorder(ODD) and other tactics to infringe on people's rights.

    If you think your arsenal of guns will stop your state police, let alone federal law enforcement, your state's National Guard, or the US military) from taking you down if they wish to do so, you're delusional.

    not if you allow them to isolate you and pile up outside your house like waco or ruby ridge, so they can murder your children. besides that? collectively? of course 100 million armed citizens can defeat 1-2 million(assuming it was so cut and dry, which it wouldn't be).

    The second amendment isn't under siege, nor is the evil gub'mint trying to "take away your guns."

    of course they/you are. see above and all the infringements you seek.

    No hunter, target shooter or even a citizen protecting himself and/or his property has a need for such things.

    irrelevant, slave. "of current military and police use" is what type of arms the people have the inalienable right to. for the purpose of killing enemies of freedom.

    Should we sell such stuff, as well as RPGs, .50 cals, Claymores, C-4, Stingers [wikipedia.org] and the like to anyone who can put cash on the barrel head?

    yes. there is no "we" with more rights than me. i am the militia. (don't waste everyone's time with your lies about the "well regulated militia" part) i have the rights. "we" are supposed to be protecting those rights, not trying to find excuses to infringe them.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   -1  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:03PM (#659022)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9rfAMDRD_A [youtube.com]

    the first video.