State lawmakers will be able to create new laws allowing private lawsuits and criminal prosecutions against Internet platforms, as long as they say their purpose is to stop crimes against children.
His academic literature about the outsized power of Big Tech stretches all the way back to 2008, when he wrote a paper called "Internet Nondiscrimination Principles: Commercial Ethics for Carriers and Search Engines," predicting that "search results" would be the next hot-button issue for regulators.
A Carmel woman who was held in contempt when she refused to unlock her smartphone for police during a criminal investigation is protected by the U.S. Constitution, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a decision that could affect how law enforcement uses technology to gather evidence.
You should never open your device or consent the search of your belongings — if the officer asks to do so, say “I do not consent to a search of my belongings”.The police cannot arrest you for practicing your fourth amendment right, however in reality the goal is to not antagonize them, so be polite.
On May 13, the Senate failed to pass an amendment to the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act which would protect individuals’ Internet browsing and search history from government surveillance without a warrant.
Eshoo (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) have published a letter which was sent to multiple federal agencies demanding that the federal agencies stop spying on Black Lives Matter protests happening across the country.
BuzzFeedNews has uncovered a memorandum that shows that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has been granted powers by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct covert surveillance on the ongoing protests sparked by the death of George Floyd.
The Drug Enforcement Administration has been granted sweeping new authority to “conduct covert surveillance” and collect intelligence on people participating in protests over the police killing of George Floyd, according to a two-page memorandum obtained by BuzzFeed News.
The FISA renewal vote came up as H.R. 6172, the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act and was pulled from the House floor on Wednesday and Thursday.
Not only would this prevent the House of Representatives from voting on the popular Wyden-Daines amendment which would force the government to obtain a warrant before spying on people’s Internet activity, but it would also prevent the House from ratifying the Lee-Leahy amendment which has been passed by the Senate to protect journalists, political candidates, and religious groups from government surveillance.
Later this week, the House of Representatives is once again voting on whether or not to extend the authorities in Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act—a surveillance law with a rich history of government overreach and abuse, along with two other PATRIOT Act provisions, and possibly, an amendment.
Greer says Wyden's introduction of the amendment could be a way of alerting the public that intelligence agencies have already been collecting U.S. citizens' web search data.
The Patriot Act is up for renewal in Congress as the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020 and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has added in an amendment that would open up internet history to the list of information that the FBI and DOJ would be able to access without a warrant.
A spokesperson for Sen. Ron Wyden, an intelligence committee member and a sponsor of the pro-privacy amendment the talking points seek to undermine, said that if an individual is a known spy, “then obviously there’s probable cause that he is an agent of a foreign power and a warrant is readily available.”.
Lofgren and Davidson advocated for their amendment in a letter Wednesday to the House Rules Committee, noting that the Wyden-Daines proposal had a bipartisan majority of the Senate and that at least two senators indicated they would have voted for it had they been present.The House is expected to pass the surveillance measure next week.
The Senate last week passed a reauthorization of the Patriot Act that included language from Mitch McConnell granting the FBI authority to see web-browsing records without a warrant.
The German government must come up with a new law regulating its secret services, after the country's highest court ruled that the current practice of monitoring telecommunications of foreign citizens at will violates constitutionally-enshrined press freedoms and the privacy of communications.
The Patriot Act is up for renewal with the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act and this bill as-is allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to access your internet history without a warrant.
Privacy advocates have launched a campaign calling on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—who impeached Donald Trump and called him “the most dangerous person in the history of our country”—to reintroduce the privacy amendment, which has enough support to pass in both chambers of Congress.
There was some good news: a second amendment did pass, which allows judges ruling on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests to seek input from independent experts.
A key amendment to the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020 that would have required authorities to obtain a warrant before gaining access to American internet browsing and search history just failed on the Senate floor by a single vote.
As if the original phone metadata siphoning provisions of the Patriot Act aren’t enough, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has introduced an amendment which would allow the Department of Justice (DOJ) to have access to anybody’s web browsing and search history under Section 215.
“My sense from my House counterparts was this is a carefully crafted compromise and that it could potentially unravel if it comes back with this amendment,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO.
The bi-partisan push to install the privacy protection mechanism was led by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Steve Daines (R-MT), and came following the news a planned addition to the PATRIOT Act, which is due to be renewed this week, would allow law enforcement to collect people’s browsing histories without a warrant.
But could the government require a similar application in the United States or would it be a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against “unreasonable searches?” Generally, the Fourth Amendment may be invoked when a search infringes on a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the government’s activity amounts to a trespass, per the Supreme Court’s holding in Katz v.
U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett in Baltimore on Friday, April 24, 2020, ruled against a grassroots think tank and area activists who asked him to keep the surveillance program from taking off, arguing that it violates their First and Fourth Amendment rights.
My conclusion, which I cover in this article, is that platforms based on cryptocurrency tech are uniquely good at one thing in particular: not being shut down, a property known more formally as “censorhip-resistance.” And I will argue in this post that this property alone causes cryptocurrency tech to act as a “second amendment of the internet,” providing a check against information-based oppression that is analogous to how the right to bear arms acts as a check against physical oppression.
EFF’s “Street-Level Surveillance” project shines light on the advanced surveillance technologies that law enforcement agencies routinely deploy in our communities.Every day, the threats to our rights expand as police use surveillance technologies to compile enormous databases filled with our personal information.