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: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 27 2020, @05:32PM (4 children)
Ah yes, with the help of my DNC super SJW's we'll prevent Sanders from winning the primary yet!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @05:43PM (3 children)
Wrong. It's about finding a scapegoat when Biden loses the general election. We wouldn't want to learn the wrong lessons from 2016-2020.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 27 2020, @05:56PM (2 children)
Sander got a crap ton fewer votes in the primary this time around. But, yeah, it's totally some giant conspiracy and not people preferring the safe bet in the middle of a pandemic.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday May 27 2020, @06:44PM
Heh, so even the DNC is convinced Trump is the *safe bet*
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2020, @10:23AM
How is an authoritarian corporatists who opposes even the most sensible reforms like Medicare For All a "safe bet"? That's not a safe bet for the future of this country, unless you like dying from lack of access to healthcare, since Biden's plan would leave 10 million people uncovered and who knows how many more under-insured.
Old people voted in overwhelming numbers, and they overwhelmingly voted for Biden. Old people are also far more likely to consume traditional corporate media, which also just happened to support Biden and other corporate democrats overwhelmingly. Maybe the fact that corporate media constantly downplayed Bernie's victories, and even went so far as to compare his win in Nevada to the Nazis invading France, had something to do with the idea that Biden was more "electable"? Endless propaganda will have an effect on the gullible, and the people willing to rely on cable TV are going to be highly gullible.