Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
eff.org
eff.org
The 4th amendment is gone and it wasn't terrorists that killed it, it was fear and representatives of the people that don't represent people that killed it.
These freedoms were given up on page 2,232 of a budget bill with no debate.
History will not be kind to this time or everyone that lived during this backslide. Freedoms are hard to win, we are giving them up easily.
As an aside, these 'pro-business' representatives just made US cloud products less valuable to foreign companies/countries and US competitors.
When will people realize that surveillance can be abused and it is usually for political or corporate espionage, has nothing to do with making anyone more secure or safe.
Business plans, data and ideas are going to be a top target to theft as they can get to it through a fake or associated threat, have some rogue actor email or send info in, extract all business data and information.
Equifax made money off its security breach ffs.
Source?
+ various third parties (i.e. the one linked to) have said its likely they made money off the breach.
Throughout history, surveillance of a population has never been in the interests of that population.
EFF: You wrote pages about it, but failed to mention the president still needs to sign it. It's a pretty glaring omission...
https://www.salon.com/2018/03/22/another-terrible-privacy-la...
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/22/supreme-court-emails-store...
Although neither source the support claim.
proving once again the Microsoft does not care about the privacy of their users, and their lawsuit fighting this was not them standing up for their users as they claimed but instead was them pushing for a liability shield that would prevent users from using them
This should be the end of CLOUD services... Self Host or no Host should be the motto of the day
Want to get a better price on a car after you think you have your best deal already worked out? Show up for the purchase closing and say you've changed your mind. Most likely they'll offer you more not to walk away at that point.
It would be insanity for the President to veto a spending bill needed to avert a shutdown because it included a provision the Administration has publicly supported and actively sought.
> Whatever your political leanings, omnibus bills are a terrible outcome
Omnibus spending bills are fine — the particular financial provisions of any one may be good or bad, but the concept is fine; they are a completely sensible way to set government finances rather than doing it piecemeal.
Non-germane law changes tacked on to an omnibus spending bill, especially one being passed shortly before the expiration of current spending authority, are, OTOH, a different issue.
No they are not fine, not has they are used today. Congress as normal has abused the power of these bill this being a prime example.
This is why we need a Constitutional Amendment to bring the US Constitution in line with 41 US States where the Single Subject Rule is enforced.
We also need to bring back the Line Item Veto
We also need a mandatory Public Comment period, I propose 1 day for every 10 pages of Text... so for this bill it would have required 223 days of public comment before a vote would have been allowed, instead of what 12 hours this one got from the time it was submitted until it was being voted on
and the executive approves them, that is the check. If they created a Single Issue rule it would not be an issue anyway, but if they are going to have the ability to pass omnibus bills then a check on that is the line item veto, no line item veto not omnibus they should go hand in hand
The single issue rule does not stop omnibus spending bills (which is exactly what normal budget bills are.)
Maybe you missed this line from the OP:
> All the bill requires now is the president’s signature.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/97716688749379993...
"I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded."
(edit: updated link to Trump's twitter post)
Can someone explain to me how Congress cannot get DACA handled? The last polling I saw showed that it had near universal support among Democrats, and a solid majority among Republicans (about 80% overall for the general population).
It should be sufficient for the Republicans who are in charge of Congress to write a simple, clean, bill--hell, just codify the Obama executive order on DACA into law, since the problem Republicans seemed to have with that was that they thought Obama did not have authority for it, not that they thought it was a bad policy. That should sail through Congress easily.
Or, if they are worried Trump might veto if it is not attached to wall funding, instead of passing it directly they could explicitly give Trump the power to issue an executive order covering this. That wouldn't give him his wall, but it would give him the opportunity to issue an order similar to Obama's, and then take credit for personally saving those children for unjust deportation after the Democrats failed to pass a law.
The Trump administration made it a pressing matter in the negotiations by rescinding DACA in September 2017, but over the following months various District Court cases were filed and the judges ordered the government to continue the DACA policy. The administration tried to appeal those findings directly in the Supreme Court -- bypassing the appeals courts -- but it was unanimously rejected, effectively upholding the lower courts' rulings for now.
Since DACA is no longer under existential threat the Democrats have backed off of the DREAM Act in order to get other priorities through, and the Republicans are happy to let sleeping dogs lie.
It's important to note that the CLOUD Act does not compel you to respond, it permits you to do so where you were prohibited before under US law.
I am a lawyer, but certainly not yours.
You could get away with saying No. As long as the UK doesn't talk to the US and ask them to turn you over (which likely requires some serious criminal activity rather than curiosity).
The most the UK government would probably do is issue a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request with the US government, who would then go get a warrant and serve that on you, which you would have to respond to.
Is the implication that before the CLOUD Act, if London police wanted to ask a US company for information they had to notify US law enforcement?
Sure, if they wanted to force a US company to give them information they would have to get the US legal system involved, but as far as I am aware US law enforcement is not a gatekeeper over foreign access to talk to US entities, at least when those foreigners are not from countries that the US restricts contact with in general.
"The legislation still:
- Includes a weak standard for review that does not rise to the protections of the warrant requirement under the 4th Amendment.
- Fails to require foreign law enforcement to seek individualized and prior judicial review.
- Grants real-time access and interception to foreign law enforcement without requiring the heightened warrant standards that U.S. police have to adhere to under the Wiretap Act.
- Fails to place adequate limits on the category and severity of crimes for this type of agreement.
- Fails to require notice on any level – to the person targeted, to the country where the person resides, and to the country where the data is stored."
I think EFF could come up with better examples. At least, most of these examples are not threatening for US persons. I'd think better examples would involve what US LEO can do unwarranted. In that case people may be inclined to exert more pressure on their representatives.
The law is bad but I think it could be painted in worse light.
As a german, I'm so fucking fed up with this attitude. "Leader of the free world" my ass.
Seriously, the US population needs to stop thinking only about what concerns the US population and acknowledge the fact that a lot of US law regarding the internet is actually also affecting the rest of the world. Stop treating non-US people as something which does not need to have at least the same level of protection.
Either fight for the right to have privacy regardless of where a person is coming from or don't fight at all.
Just standing there saying "ah, it's fine, it protects US persons." and then bragging about the US being a fine country and protecting the rest of the world is just... I don't have words for it.
I think this legislation at odds at least with upcoming GDPR if not with existing regulations in some EU members. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
It's important for people to keep this in mind when they think something is best for others outside their jurisdiction. This is especially true when these countries/regions use their leverage and say they're doing something only for their citizens knowing it affects the global internet.
https://thenextweb.com/apps/2018/03/22/slacks-new-policy-let...
Of course, that's often a good distraction from unjust governmental overreach at home. But if you think that wasn't just as true at the Cold War time you point to, you are sadly mistaken.
How will putting the government on the defensive result in better lawmaking? That’s exactly the situation we are in now. Lawmakers are afraid of technology and make ill advised laws to try and control it.
you should know better than that by now, come on. vote, do whatever. i sure do. but until you're disrupting things, they won't listen.
And this, gentlemen, is why you NEVER trust a government. Any government.