Mitch McConnell Moves to Expand Bill Barr’s Surveillance Powers

https://www.lawfareblog.com/senate-proposes-five-amendments-...

It’s quite extensive and talks about each of five amendments including the various side-by-sides that McConnell has put forward.

Here’s the part just about web browsing content vs metadata;

> Courts have struggled with the line between what constitutes the “content” of communications and what does not. For example, most courts have ruled that a first-level web domain, like www.amazon.com, is considered to be dialing-routing-addressing-signaling, not “content,” and as such could be collected without a warrant. But a domain name that results from a search of “anarchist cookbook”—a 1971 book that contains instructions for manufacturing explosives—would be considered “content.” The Wyden-Daines amendment is designed to clarify that all Americans’ internet website browsing and internet search history information would be off-limits without a warrant.

> McConnell has authored a side-by-side to this amendment that would seem, on its face, to similarly limit an application under Section 215 to exclude an order authorizing or requiring the production of internet website browsing information or internet search history information. But the side-by-side would limit such an application only “to the extent such information constitutes contents of a communication, as defined in section 2510 of title 18, United States Code.” This qualification is key to understanding the McConnell alternative amendment: Rather than requiring a warrant for collection of Americans’ internet website browsing and internet search history information, it essentially restates and reifies the existing, somewhat confusing, state of affairs. In essence, the McConnell amendment maintains the current status quo regarding treatment of internet website browsing and internet search history information.