US lawmakers get a second shot at forcing FBI agents to obtain a warrant before they leaf through web histories 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 …
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you think that the All American (i.e white, prejudiced, Trump supporters) FBI leadership would ever engage in such tactics. Next you'll tell me that the one lead the surveillance resulted in did not possibly prevent the deaths of millions, MILLIONS, of Americans.
Seems they already have ....
Facebook shareholders try to block encryption plan.
"Investors at Facebook's annual stockholder meeting will vote on a proposal to postpone the firm's plans for end-to-end encryption.
The firm says it wants to make the measure the default option across its messaging platforms to protect privacy.
But activist shareholders say this would make it nearly impossible to detect child exploitation on Facebook.
The group wants the company to delay the move until after its board of directors studies the risk further.
"As shareholders, we know that privacy is important to a social media company, but it should not come at the expense of unleashing a whole new torrent of virtually undetectable child sexual abuse on Facebook," said Michael Passoff, founder of Proxy Impact, a shareholder advocacy service supporting the measure."
I know - I know. What comes next in this post is nothing new to most folks here. But - sigh. Once more around the lighthouse.
1: Anything - _anything_ - can be put to a purpose that is either not the intended one - or a use of the 'thing' that may be illegal, objectionable or otherwise pernicious.
2: The argument that 'because (thing) can be used by some people improperly should mean nobody can use it' therefore leads to 'nobody should be permitted to use anything'.
Here comes the obligatory example - feel free to look away. And no, I'm not going to talk guns - nor Amendment related issues. I'm going to offer something directly relate-able, in my view, to Mr Passoff's point. Because cameras, both still and video, are a direct tool of the people and purpose he finds unacceptable (and as to the people and purpose, I do not necessarily disagree). So therefore, would he care to take up the cause of banning all still and video cameras? That would serve to significantly limit child abuse, surely? Or if not to ban them, to insist all still and video camera be modified to send copies of all still and videos record to a government agency for analysis and review? From his perspective, to allow people the unfettered right to record images and video may indeed be important to them, but surely it should not come at the expense of the potential and actuality of child sex abuse? Or is that somehow 'different'?
Sigh. OK - I'll shut up now. Grump. With extra grump.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you think that the All American (i.e white, prejudiced, Trump supporters) FBI leadership would ever engage in such tactics.
Your assumption that only white people are racist is ludicrous, wrong, and racist in itself. Time to grow up. Tick tock.
You are correct, that racism is not only reserved for white people (as the Japanese Shōwa era proved).
But, in America at least, it's not the white people dying because of that prejudice
https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/5/27/21271667/george-floyd-death-police-kneed-in-the-neck
Oh contaire mon frere. Almost every large city in the US has areas where it is unsafe for a white person to walk alone, particularly at night. I worked for a social welfare agency in a relatively safe large city, and some of my black coworkers would not accompany a white worker into some neighborhoods because it increased dramatically the risk that they would be attacked. They felt safer going by themselves.
It's the "USA Freedom Act", therefor, given the inverse rule about law titles, this Act is clearly about restricting freedom in the USA, so there's no chance of adding any section that would improve freedom in the USA.
Besides, the NSA doesn't care about the Law or the Constitution. It has a friggin' big 'puter and it's gonna keep using it.
the unfortunate reality is that ANY government will become a tyranny if the people ALLOW it, in the name of "protection", "safety", "security", or "the children", or some similar excuse to allow your freedom and privacy go bye-bye...
Seeing at least "a token attempt" to reverse this trend is somewhat encouraging. Seeing actual RESULTS that REALLY WORK would be SHOCKING (but welcome).
Are we to believe that ISPs are logging every URL each customer accesses? Even the hundreds of advertising tracking bits embedded into all the major sites? Everything a customer types into any text box? They've got the storage space (and desire) to retain this data for weeks (or months, or years) at a time -- "just in case?"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
