Since Congress is likely voting tomorrow on the Lofgren-Davidson amendment to the PATRIOT Act, today is the day to contact your representatives and tell them how you’d like them to vote.
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.
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.
If you’ve been following privacy issues at all in recent years, you know that websites and smartphone apps are sharing your detailed location information with data brokers and advertisers.
If it isn’t stopped, the worst parts of this deal will likely come standard on future agreements, and Americans will be subject to more and more searches by foreign police.TELL CONGRESS TO STOP THE U.S.-U.K. CLOUD ACT DEAL.
Today, EFF is publishing “The Failed Fix to NSL Gag Orders,” a new report based on an in-depth analysis of records EFF obtained after we won a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit earlier this year.
Writing for the majority in a ruling handed down on Wednesday, Justice Debra Todd wrote: Based upon these cases rendered by the United States Supreme Court regarding the scope of the Fifth Amendment, we conclude that compelling the disclosure of a password to a computer, that is, the act of production, is testimonial.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a forceful opinion today holding that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from being forced to disclose the passcode to their devices to the police.
This court decision comes as a result of years of hard work by the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts and the EFF on behalf of eleven international travelers who had been the recipient of suspicionless device searches when entering the United States.
After the government appealed, the FISC allowed the FBI to continue to use backdoor searches to invade people’s privacy—even in investigations that may have nothing to do with national security or foreign intelligence—so long as it follows what the appeals court called a “modest ministerial procedure.” Basically, this means requiring FBI agents to document more clearly why they were searching the giant 702 databases for information about Americans.
Unlike probable cause, which is the standard required for obtaining a search warrant, reasonable suspicion is a more lenient rule that lets law enforcement officials conduct searches without getting a warrant first.
On the same day that Oakland’s City Council voted to ban government use of the technology, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act (H.R. 3494) that would require the Director of National Intelligence to report on the use of face surveillance by intelligence agencies.