SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US lawmakers will get another vote on whether the FBI must get a warrant before agents can search Americans' search and web-browsing histories.
House reps Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Warren Davidson (R-OH) led the effort over the Memorial Day weekend to propose tacking an amendment onto the proposed USA FREEDOM Act, which is before the House of Representatives. The USA FREEDOM Act, if renewed as it stands, reauthorizes various USA PATRIOT Act surveillance programs.
One cause for concern is the lack of requirement, in section 215 of the legislation, for the Feds to get a search warrant before requesting access to people's internet activities from their ISPs.
Lofgren et al want the House to vote on amending the USA Freedom Act to include that requirement. The act has already passed the Senate without the warrant requirement, though if the House succeeds in tacking on the caveat, the Senate will have to consider it, too.
"After extensive bicameral, bipartisan deliberations, there will be a vote to include a final significant reform to Section 215 that protects Americans' civil liberties," Lofgren said in a statement on Tuesday.
"Our internet activity opens a window into the most sensitive areas of our private life, and, this week, Representatives will be able to vote to prevent the government from using Section 215 to collect the websites we visit, the videos we watch and the searches we make."
The House vote on the amendment will follow a similar attempt to add a warrant requirement in the Senate earlier this month, which fell by a single vote, and caused uproar. One of the authors of that proposed proviso in the Senate, Ron Wyden (D-OR), praised Lofgren for getting the issue on the floor of Congress again:
"I applaud Representative Lofgren for securing a vote on my amendment to ban warrantless collection of Americans' internet activity," the senator said. "There are few things more private than where a person goes on the internet, or what they search for online, so the government must obtain a warrant to get that information. I urge the House to pass it, and the Senate to follow suit."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @07:40AM (1 child)
The third party doctrine was a terrible decision and a blatant end-run around the fourth amendment. If you don't give your information to third parties (impossible, because others will do it for you if you don't) in the modern world, you basically have to live the life of a hermit. That is not practical, and the courts knew that. So, the third party doctrine was nothing more than an authoritarian decision to cripple the fourth amendment.
The government should have to get a warrant for data that pertains to someone else even if the third party wants to give it to them. Anything else will result (and largely already has) in the complete and utter destruction of the fourth amendment, privacy, freedom, and democracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:47AM
I'm not saying it is right, but that doesn't change the legal theory they use.