The way that these amendments can change specific punctuation without clarifying the impact or meaning of the change seems terrible. Like trying to read a git commit without any message.
I am not surprised that a colossal moron like Turner would spin disallowing warrantless spying on American citizens as guaranteeing “constitutional rights to our adversaries”.
unsurprising. this has been a major reason the Republican house speaker is looking at a recall (yet again.) hardliners are upset the FISA regulations havent been renewed to their liking, and Mike Johnson (current speaker) would likely shore up his chances of making it at least 200 days as speaker if he passed this.
getting moderate or traditional conservatives (let alone democrats or independents) to sign this is another matter entirely. FISA has become a babadook policy the US government would just as soon slowly forget about and expire, similar to GITMO and the more acerbic policies of the Bush administration during the WoT. these types of regulations enjoy pretty unilateral disapproval because they have the potential to bite the hand that feeds.
from what I've seen its the traditional democrats and republicans who are in favor, with the leftists opposed on human rights grounds and the hardcore trumpers opposed due to their grudge against the FBI
Its inevitable because of the power dynamics between democracies and totalitarian regimes. Democracies thought that with the internet they would topple totalitarianism because of free flow of information. They forgot that totalitarian regimes can just imprison and shoot all who have access to and propagate the information. Now the wheel has turned and the same regimes are weaponizing AI and shill farms to create enough propaganda to destabilize a democracy for the price of a few dollars. We're all headed towards a global race to the bottom because of it, the dream of the early internet has been crushed because of human evil.
US and British democracy certainly aren't the best implementations around. If you wanted to divide and rule you couldn't come up with a better voting system for that than first-past-the-post.
Too many people think they have to run for congress or president instead of thinking more locally. Jesse Ventura is a great example of what the founders envisioned as encouraging people to get involved in politics. He was unhappy with the local city government. He ran for mayor and won and spent four years in charge. Went back to his private sector life and then five years after leaving office, ran for governor and won.
I've had friends get involved in their local politics and have been effective. My buddy was a professional skateboarder and run twice for a local office and he barely lost both times and has vowed to stay involved in his cities politics.
You're seeing more and more people getting involved at the national level who said they never had any inkling of getting involved in politics but have thrown their hats in the ring.
There was a reason the founders made the barrier extremely low to get involved in politics, either locally or nationally. They wanted people to have a say in how their governments are run and to make it simple for them to be the change they want to see.
I'm sure that makes the medicine go down easier, but we're not powerless at all. We choose to have no say. We choose not to run our own campaigns and get grassroots approval. Less than half of us vote. The rest accept the status quo, despite the fact that they don't have to. We give away our power.
All of the methods by which a dark horse can run and win are there. The state will not remove your votes or intimidate voters not to vote for you. You will not be poisoned by radioactive toxins to prevent you from running. You will not be kidnapped, or your family threatened, or a bomb set off in polling locations. This isn't in any way like so many other actually repressive regimes. All you have to do is go and run.
We have more power in this society than anyone in any other. So why do we claim we're powerless? Because it makes us feel better that we're so lazy. I could run for office, but that might restrict my time watching The Office. Better to just say that running is pointless, so I don't have to make the change I want to see.
And even if you don't want to run, you can vote for independents, you can complain to your representatives, you can organize your friends and neighbors to petition local government for local reforms and participate in larger state and federal efforts. Individually we may be a drop in the bucket, but collectively we are a wave. You can't say that isn't powerful.
How about a pm last less than 60 days? Any totalitarian country like that. We are talking about a country my exam question is “all Brits are slaves, discuss”. Still.
Anyway may be you are the bots we talked about. And if not even more sad.
Sure, surveil all internet traffic is just to prevent 'human evil,' not to perpetuate it further.
I can't even imagine writing this comparison of democracy vs. totalitarian regimes while the 'democracy' is behaving in the same way as a totalitarian regime in this context.
A ridiculous fairy tale. Dictatorships need hardly interfere with the "stability" of a society which launches a bloody and monumentally expensive temper tantrum in response to 9/11 but allows thousands more to die each year for want of basic medicines
It's just a ROI calculation. A Russian fighter jet costs $25 mil, so a rational course of action would to weigh the benefit of buying another jet vs. buying a dozen congressmen, or flooding social media with misinformation to cancel a multi billion dollar defense bill for Ukraine.
And yet they do interfere and are actively engaged in sowing dissent, discord, and wacky ideas by utilizing the power of social media. Your comment is at odds with reality. The rise of people being against something as obviously beneficial as the polio vaccine is an indication of just how powerful disinformation campaigns can be.
>A <$insert hyper emotional disparagement>. Dictatorships need hardly interfere with the "stability" of a society which <$insert random example some democratic failure>.
And yet they do interfere. We've seen plenty of evidence, from Russia, Iran, China and (I still can't believe how they got competent at this, but there you go) North Korea.
And in some cases they've been successful at destabilizing formerly fairly sane and stable democratic countries. The social divisions that the UK And US currently find themselves in could be attributed in part to this steady drip of caustic interference.
However, as a "short term pessimist, but long term optimist" (Hitchens), I'm optimistic that we will start to introspect a bit more as societies and begin to be less easily manipulated. It will take a while, but I believe even now the tide is turning.
The true problem started with the promise of western lifestyle with a planet that can not support such a lifestyle, and it cant be taken back. And due to the assymetric destabilizing effects of advanced technology, we can not science our way out of this trap. So, we walk the middle road, augmenting society to better the angles of our nature with panopticons etc. while the planet still can carry us.
Planet could have easily supported this lifestyle for everyone on the planet in 50s but everyone else but developed nations started a mass reproduction race where population didn't just double but increased tenfold.
Sorry, you obviously don't live in a totalitarian country.
Democracy is never ideal, it's always full of crooks, lies, hypocrisy. Especially when most people have more interesting things to do than participating in politics. But it's not even close to anything totalitarian. I've lived in both, and have the perspective.
Explain how you can have snowdens discussion and this thread in public? Doing the same critique of government policy in russia or china would get you disappeared real fast.
Increasingly, the word "democracy" seems like the word "terrorist" - both words have lost any distinct meaning they used to have, because of the way they have been abused in political rhetoric.
Re. your handle: did you snag it from the Borges short story?
Every time someone disagrees with laws passed by a democracy, this argument comes back.
Did you ever speak with someone out of tech about internet spying? I did, no normie gives a shit.
This is 100% the will of the people. Just take the L for what it is and accept that this is democracy working as intended.
Western democracies had no interest in supporting democracies in other places they have been complicit in bringing down fledging democracies all over the the world the latest example is Pakistan. Democracy and Justice is only for themselves it also shows how Israel can commit the worse war crimes and atrocities and most western politicians and media defend it.
Reality: 's/Democracies thought that/Western techno-utopians believed, and feel-good politicians promised, that/'
I never got the sense that real grown-ups, who knew history, believed any such "the internet will topple" twaddle. Carefully-delivered truths (think Voice of America) can annoy and mildly undermine totalitarian regimes. If you want to do more - well, in WWII, British and American bombers dropped vastly more high explosives than information leaflets on the Axis powers.
It's gotta be both because if you don't know who to brutalize you can have all the brutalizers in the world but not know how to use em. Look at how the Stasi operated, intel is crucial for maintaining control of a state.
I disagree, it is far from inevitable. I think this is a huge mirage. People believe others fall for propaganda en masse and fail to account for their own lack of critical thinking.
This is a typical fear reaction. "Disinformation" threatens our democracies, so we need to give up X and Y and allow government access to our most private devices and information.
It is wrong of course. And if we would ask for an example of a case of disinformation that did threaten democracy, we can wait a long, long time.
The capitalist West was not 'totalitarian' only because up until recently, it was possible to condition or distract the public through the corporate-controlled media. When the people gained the means to share information and organize and the corporate media was not enough to keep them down anymore, the system showed its true nature and stomped down the Occupy movement on the pavement. Sure, they did not jail them for their 'free speech', but they fined tens of thousands of dollars each for 'trespassing on PUBLIC property', effectively bankrupting many students, working-class activists etc, and sending a message to everyone else who 'had ideas'.
Some say that 'Angloamerican democracies are flawed of course'. The above is not flawed. Americans say that neither their vote nor their opinion has any effect on policy (~70%+ on polls each) leaving aside the recent research that shows it to be so, and when they try to change anything, they get what was done to Occupy done to them. Its not democratic
And for those who think that there is more freedom in Europe:
Please. PLEASE. can't we stop pretending that random russian/chinese bot do influence us? On twitter??? it's bullshit. Our media and friends are much more powerful.
It's NOT inevitable. Let's not be jaded. This law is terrible.
"If the bill becomes law, any company or individual that provides ANY service whatsoever may be forced to assist in NSA surveillance, as long as they have access to equipment on which communications are transmitted or stored—such as routers, servers, cell towers, etc."
We have the tech (and have had for some time) to prevent this happening. I don't know why some intrepid coder hasn't released an easy to deploy, self-hosted, p2p encrypted platform allowing limited sharing of files, comms, sites etc. I was involved in the development of something like this, and local government (AU) regulation made it untenable, but there are countries where this could be doable without repercussions.
The vast majority of traffic I care about on the internet is related to my close peers and friends. This could all be completely private. The intersections between other communities could be done with ACLs, the largely public stuff can still be hosted on servers.
The 2 main problems this faces are that it's adversarial to advertising and analysis, and that it doesn't involve payment to a 3rd party for hosting / processing. Both of these are positives in my view.
> I don't know why some intrepid coder hasn't released an easy to deploy, self-hosted, p2p encrypted platform allowing limited sharing of files, comms, sites etc.
I tried this once. When I was almost ready to release something my government started to illegally persecute companies that provided privacy on the internet, and the heads of the Judiciary power started to comment that hiding your data is criminal.
That's discouraging to hear. This is why the U.S. Constitution's 4th amendment is so important. The right to privacy isn't only to give citizens peace of mind, but also to prevent governments from tyranizing freely using dissenting information to fuel their persecution.
> an easy to deploy, self-hosted, p2p encrypted platform allowing limited sharing of files
They have: Freenet, I2P, Tor... none have ever really taken off, _because_ they can be used to circumvent government monitoring. At the end of the day, we'll submit to panopticon censorship because most of us _want_ panopticon censorship.
None of them have taken off because the UX sucks. Say what you will about open source development, Tor, P2P, IPFS, etc, it's an amazing achievement, but without great design and UX it will never take off. It needs to work cross platform, be designed beautifully, be consistent in speed, responsiveness, etc; have support and documentation; guaranteed uptime; work cross-device; integrate with modern services, etc etc.
A long tail of features that users care about. Devs will ship 1/10th of the total package as free, open source and scratch their heads at why the users don't come to enjoy the freedom. As Steve Jobs said, "Design is how it works." And most of these solutions don't work for the average user.
If Freenet was as fast and as easy as browsing over regular internet and had just as much relevant content, I think everyone would use it. It's slow, sparse, and requires more effort to install and use, so people don't.
What are you saying is the actual mechanism of causality for people making personal software choices based on "wanting" panopticon censorship? I don't think it's "I'll be a good citizen and prefer software that allows surveillance". Unless by "most of us" you mean everyone taking home bags of money working for the surveillance industry in Surveillance Valley?
The way I see it, centralized surveillable services promise lucrative investment returns based on monetizing user data, which attracts capital from the everything bubble seeking anywhere to go, which pays for an overwhelming amount of advertising that fakes social proof. And now that users have been trained to wantonly trust web browsers and shy away from native software, and the surveillance industry business model has been proven out, the situation is quite sticky.
You can’t use tech to solve a legal issue like this because you’re either breaking a law, or just kicking the problem a few years into the future, waiting for a new law that takes your tech into consideration. The best response is to fight it hard at the public opinion level, and then the legislation becomes untenable
But if that fails, tech workarounds might be a lot better than nothing
The X thread says even service providers who come into your house can be forced to steal data from your computer, e.g. plumbers. So storing your data locally won't be sufficient, it also needs to be tamperproof against physical attackers.
If the government can force a plumber to that, can they force the plumber to show up to the job on time? Will I be charged for the extra time? ("Hey honey, the plumber picked up my call on the first ring. Is that suspicious?")
Streisand sets up a new server running your choice of WireGuard, OpenConnect, OpenSSH, OpenVPN, Shadowsocks, sslh, Stunnel, or a Tor bridge. It also generates custom instructions for all of these services. At the end of the run you are given an HTML file with instructions that can be shared with friends, family members, and fellow activists.
> I don't know why some intrepid coder hasn't released an easy to deploy, self-hosted, p2p encrypted platform allowing limited sharing of files, comms, sites etc.
Isn't this already effectively the case - not just in the US but universally? If the government 'lawfully' requests access to investigate a crime, there are only a few carveouts that are available to dispute the request (journalists with 1st amendment privileges, etc...). That's why Apple and others just architect so they do not have visibility into much of the data - so the answer is 'no' not because they're declining the request but 'no' because they have no path to get the data (because they designed it that way).
> That's why Apple and others just architect so they do not have visibility into much of the data
No, that is not why. Yes, they architect so they do not have visibility into much of the data, but not (primarily) because they want to protect their users. It's because they want to save costs spent on lawyers debating whether the subpoena is indeed applicable and lawful and doesn't invade constitutional right to privacy or violate some state or international law or even a third party EULA.
By shutting themselves out Apple weaponizes technology into some legalism that carves the right to privacy or freedom of speech into stone. That's great, but it doesn't magically solve all legal problems; it just makes sure it's not Apple's problem anymore.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There is also a type of worry that if cyber surveillance suddenly doesn't need a warrant than any group that is targeted by whatever party is in power (ie. whoever they don't like) suddenly are being surveilled, possibly for private speech/thought crimes, the definition of which could change every 2-4 years. I'm not saying that is true, but that would be the slippery slope version of this.
I think what's new here is that they could now force Apple to use additional devices and software, not of Apple's choosing, to obtain the data for them.
I think you're using the outside US English understanding of 'government' that means the current majority group in the legislature and typically that group picks the executive.
That's a fine definition, but not the operative one in a discussion of the US NSA.
In the US, the government is the apparatus of state power. That includes legislative, judicial, and executive. Including police, court, schools run by the state (we call them public schools, but that's another term that likely means something else to you), parks deparments, municipal services (if not private businesses), etc.
Separation of legislative / judiciary / executive powers.
Speaking of, I realize that I never really thought (enough) about it, it also matters to which one of these the various espionage and law enforcement organizations report to !
My opinion is that NSA has already done that a long time ago.
My opinion is that Iaws like this are made to provide cover to use that intelligence they have gathered in a less covert manner.
If somebody asks, "where the hell did you get that information"?
They can point to this law as a legal procedure.
I dont think general encryption is a big problem for the NSA either,
thought that is less certain.
The NSO group is able to repeatedly find serious and scary 0 days,
that remain unknown for some period of time.
The NSO grop does not have the manpower, skill, budget and hardware that
the NSA does.
I am convinced the NSA is sitting on an ample collection of useful 0-days,
0 click vulnerabilities and they can access Windows/Linux/MacOS/iOS/Android/Chrome/Edge/Firefox
Dropbox,OneDrive,Box,S3, etc etc at their leisure.
but they cannot use a lot of what they find since it would raise questions.
> I am convinced the NSA is sitting on an ample collection of useful 0-days, 0 click vulnerabilities and they can access Windows/Linux/MacOS/iOS/Android/Chrome/Edge/Firefox Dropbox,OneDrive,Box,S3, etc etc at their leisure. but they cannot use a lot of what they find since it would raise questions.
This seems extremely uncontroversial to me.
Tucker Carlson released an interview yesterday with Telegram's founder, Pavel Durov. The part that I found most interesting was that Durov claims US intelligence tried to secretly work with Telegram engineers to understand, among other things, which open source libraries Telegram uses – I assume because they have back doors into a lot of the popular ones.
Readit News
This is the report introducing the controversial amendment: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress...
The amendment is the last item in the report, under this heading:
> 6. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Turner of Ohio or His Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes
This is the transcript of the session where the amendment was discussed and voted on: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-170/iss...
You can find the discussion within the text using this search term:
> Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Turner
Congressional debate is supposed to be the forum in which details like that are noted and discussed.
getting moderate or traditional conservatives (let alone democrats or independents) to sign this is another matter entirely. FISA has become a babadook policy the US government would just as soon slowly forget about and expire, similar to GITMO and the more acerbic policies of the Bush administration during the WoT. these types of regulations enjoy pretty unilateral disapproval because they have the potential to bite the hand that feeds.
from what I've seen its the traditional democrats and republicans who are in favor, with the leftists opposed on human rights grounds and the hardcore trumpers opposed due to their grudge against the FBI
Congratulations, you have recorded the first indexed hit of "babadook policy" recorded by Google Search.
Now would you care to explain the phrase you have just effectively coined.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
Too many people think they have to run for congress or president instead of thinking more locally. Jesse Ventura is a great example of what the founders envisioned as encouraging people to get involved in politics. He was unhappy with the local city government. He ran for mayor and won and spent four years in charge. Went back to his private sector life and then five years after leaving office, ran for governor and won.
I've had friends get involved in their local politics and have been effective. My buddy was a professional skateboarder and run twice for a local office and he barely lost both times and has vowed to stay involved in his cities politics.
You're seeing more and more people getting involved at the national level who said they never had any inkling of getting involved in politics but have thrown their hats in the ring.
There was a reason the founders made the barrier extremely low to get involved in politics, either locally or nationally. They wanted people to have a say in how their governments are run and to make it simple for them to be the change they want to see.
All of the methods by which a dark horse can run and win are there. The state will not remove your votes or intimidate voters not to vote for you. You will not be poisoned by radioactive toxins to prevent you from running. You will not be kidnapped, or your family threatened, or a bomb set off in polling locations. This isn't in any way like so many other actually repressive regimes. All you have to do is go and run.
We have more power in this society than anyone in any other. So why do we claim we're powerless? Because it makes us feel better that we're so lazy. I could run for office, but that might restrict my time watching The Office. Better to just say that running is pointless, so I don't have to make the change I want to see.
And even if you don't want to run, you can vote for independents, you can complain to your representatives, you can organize your friends and neighbors to petition local government for local reforms and participate in larger state and federal efforts. Individually we may be a drop in the bucket, but collectively we are a wave. You can't say that isn't powerful.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Anyway may be you are the bots we talked about. And if not even more sad.
I can't even imagine writing this comparison of democracy vs. totalitarian regimes while the 'democracy' is behaving in the same way as a totalitarian regime in this context.
Dead Comment
And yet they do interfere. We've seen plenty of evidence, from Russia, Iran, China and (I still can't believe how they got competent at this, but there you go) North Korea.
And in some cases they've been successful at destabilizing formerly fairly sane and stable democratic countries. The social divisions that the UK And US currently find themselves in could be attributed in part to this steady drip of caustic interference.
However, as a "short term pessimist, but long term optimist" (Hitchens), I'm optimistic that we will start to introspect a bit more as societies and begin to be less easily manipulated. It will take a while, but I believe even now the tide is turning.
Oceania is always at wars for a reason.
https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/hannah-ritchie/not-...
Democracy is never ideal, it's always full of crooks, lies, hypocrisy. Especially when most people have more interesting things to do than participating in politics. But it's not even close to anything totalitarian. I've lived in both, and have the perspective.
There is a big difference.
Re. your handle: did you snag it from the Borges short story?
Did you ever speak with someone out of tech about internet spying? I did, no normie gives a shit. This is 100% the will of the people. Just take the L for what it is and accept that this is democracy working as intended.
By the way there is nothing (no valuable resources) for outsiders to even get involved. Blame nobody but the Pakistani army for it's situation
I never got the sense that real grown-ups, who knew history, believed any such "the internet will topple" twaddle. Carefully-delivered truths (think Voice of America) can annoy and mildly undermine totalitarian regimes. If you want to do more - well, in WWII, British and American bombers dropped vastly more high explosives than information leaflets on the Axis powers.
As long as an authoritative regime keeps these balanced against factions opposed to it, the regime can remain stable without popular support.
(Although doing so while running a functional and healthy economy is more difficult)
I think it has changed to "the entity with a monopoly on surveillance".
This is a typical fear reaction. "Disinformation" threatens our democracies, so we need to give up X and Y and allow government access to our most private devices and information.
It is wrong of course. And if we would ask for an example of a case of disinformation that did threaten democracy, we can wait a long, long time.
Better explained by "Internet Fuckwad Theory" https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theo.... It turns out anonymity isn't even necessary: attention is all you need.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-co...
The capitalist West was not 'totalitarian' only because up until recently, it was possible to condition or distract the public through the corporate-controlled media. When the people gained the means to share information and organize and the corporate media was not enough to keep them down anymore, the system showed its true nature and stomped down the Occupy movement on the pavement. Sure, they did not jail them for their 'free speech', but they fined tens of thousands of dollars each for 'trespassing on PUBLIC property', effectively bankrupting many students, working-class activists etc, and sending a message to everyone else who 'had ideas'.
Some say that 'Angloamerican democracies are flawed of course'. The above is not flawed. Americans say that neither their vote nor their opinion has any effect on policy (~70%+ on polls each) leaving aside the recent research that shows it to be so, and when they try to change anything, they get what was done to Occupy done to them. Its not democratic
And for those who think that there is more freedom in Europe:
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/16/germany_palestine#:~:....
You have freedom as long as you don't disturb the ruling class or go against the incumbent foreign policy.
It's NOT inevitable. Let's not be jaded. This law is terrible.
Dead Comment
"If the bill becomes law, any company or individual that provides ANY service whatsoever may be forced to assist in NSA surveillance, as long as they have access to equipment on which communications are transmitted or stored—such as routers, servers, cell towers, etc."
We have the tech (and have had for some time) to prevent this happening. I don't know why some intrepid coder hasn't released an easy to deploy, self-hosted, p2p encrypted platform allowing limited sharing of files, comms, sites etc. I was involved in the development of something like this, and local government (AU) regulation made it untenable, but there are countries where this could be doable without repercussions.
The vast majority of traffic I care about on the internet is related to my close peers and friends. This could all be completely private. The intersections between other communities could be done with ACLs, the largely public stuff can still be hosted on servers.
The 2 main problems this faces are that it's adversarial to advertising and analysis, and that it doesn't involve payment to a 3rd party for hosting / processing. Both of these are positives in my view.
I tried this once. When I was almost ready to release something my government started to illegally persecute companies that provided privacy on the internet, and the heads of the Judiciary power started to comment that hiding your data is criminal.
They have: Freenet, I2P, Tor... none have ever really taken off, _because_ they can be used to circumvent government monitoring. At the end of the day, we'll submit to panopticon censorship because most of us _want_ panopticon censorship.
A long tail of features that users care about. Devs will ship 1/10th of the total package as free, open source and scratch their heads at why the users don't come to enjoy the freedom. As Steve Jobs said, "Design is how it works." And most of these solutions don't work for the average user.
This is a pretty big claim that I feel bears some explanation as to why you feel that way
As long as I can still post my lunch on Instagram and explain to LinkedIn how I organize my inbox, I don't mind if the NSA is watching.
The way I see it, centralized surveillable services promise lucrative investment returns based on monetizing user data, which attracts capital from the everything bubble seeking anywhere to go, which pays for an overwhelming amount of advertising that fakes social proof. And now that users have been trained to wantonly trust web browsers and shy away from native software, and the surveillance industry business model has been proven out, the situation is quite sticky.
But if that fails, tech workarounds might be a lot better than nothing
How times have changed. Not for the best in that respect..
Streisand sets up a new server running your choice of WireGuard, OpenConnect, OpenSSH, OpenVPN, Shadowsocks, sslh, Stunnel, or a Tor bridge. It also generates custom instructions for all of these services. At the end of the run you are given an HTML file with instructions that can be shared with friends, family members, and fellow activists.
You mean https://geti2p.ne?
No, that is not why. Yes, they architect so they do not have visibility into much of the data, but not (primarily) because they want to protect their users. It's because they want to save costs spent on lawyers debating whether the subpoena is indeed applicable and lawful and doesn't invade constitutional right to privacy or violate some state or international law or even a third party EULA.
By shutting themselves out Apple weaponizes technology into some legalism that carves the right to privacy or freedom of speech into stone. That's great, but it doesn't magically solve all legal problems; it just makes sure it's not Apple's problem anymore.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There's usually a police investigation, but ultimately it's a court that compels people to do things. The police can't issue subpoenas on their own.
A court is not the government. A court is the people (at least if it's an actual court, and not some fake pseudo-court).
That's a fine definition, but not the operative one in a discussion of the US NSA.
In the US, the government is the apparatus of state power. That includes legislative, judicial, and executive. Including police, court, schools run by the state (we call them public schools, but that's another term that likely means something else to you), parks deparments, municipal services (if not private businesses), etc.
Maybe in common law countries. In rest of the world the judiciary is simply semi-independent branch of power.
Speaking of, I realize that I never really thought (enough) about it, it also matters to which one of these the various espionage and law enforcement organizations report to !
Dead Comment
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1779885123363635572.html
If somebody asks, "where the hell did you get that information"? They can point to this law as a legal procedure.
I dont think general encryption is a big problem for the NSA either, thought that is less certain.
The NSO group is able to repeatedly find serious and scary 0 days, that remain unknown for some period of time.
The NSO grop does not have the manpower, skill, budget and hardware that the NSA does.
I am convinced the NSA is sitting on an ample collection of useful 0-days, 0 click vulnerabilities and they can access Windows/Linux/MacOS/iOS/Android/Chrome/Edge/Firefox Dropbox,OneDrive,Box,S3, etc etc at their leisure. but they cannot use a lot of what they find since it would raise questions.
This seems extremely uncontroversial to me.
Tucker Carlson released an interview yesterday with Telegram's founder, Pavel Durov. The part that I found most interesting was that Durov claims US intelligence tried to secretly work with Telegram engineers to understand, among other things, which open source libraries Telegram uses – I assume because they have back doors into a lot of the popular ones.
Speaking of backdoors in popular open source libraries, the recent incident with xz is exemplary I think.
Kinda problematic given how key the US is to internet infra. Plus ofc five eyes so yeah snowdens take as “the internet” seems pretty credible
The original article linked in the thread was a Dec 2023 piece, and that version of the FRRA never received a vote.
This is about the new version put forward that includes some named exclusions.
Also, if you're curious about the internal sausage-making in the House, there's this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-rages-over-fisa-...