Congressman confronts FBI over “egregious” unlawful search of his personal data
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Fancy Internet Person
Ars Praefectus
As is insurrection to overthrow elections. This jackass supports that.
Upvote
47
(54
/
-7)
Upvote
24
(25
/
-1)
AmanoJyaku
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Considering how conservative Democrats, neo-liberal Democrats, and progressive Democrats are constantly at each other's throats, I don't see a lot of boot-licking. FFS, plenty of cross-the-aislers blow up Democratic legislation.
Upvote
36
(37
/
-1)
Upvote
17
(23
/
-6)
Fancy Internet Person
Ars Praefectus
Would we still be talking about a guy who supported overturning the 2020 election?
Upvote
47
(54
/
-7)
Meanwhile to not book lick on the republican side leads to banishment, censure, and other punishments.
Upvote
41
(43
/
-2)
Upvote
42
(43
/
-1)
IncorrigibleTroll
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Sure, let's trust the people who abused the old rules to set new ones that are less subject to abuse. I'm sure that will genuinely change things and not just be business as usual with better plausible deniability.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
How nice. The FBI put reforms in place just before Section 702 would expire.
And the want it renewed without change so that they can walk back those reforms without problem (and maybe without notice).
And the want it renewed without change so that they can walk back those reforms without problem (and maybe without notice).
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
It seems indisputable to me that modern day America has a serious police / surveillance issue. Everything from small, local police departments to big city police departments to state-wide agencies to federal agencies such as Border Patrol, FBI, NSA, etc. Pretty much all have been granted so much power through legislation and technology, with virtually no effective oversight or consequences for bad behavior that these guys feel untouchable.
From aggressive, violent police to warrantless searches like those outlined here average Americans are under a constant state of surveillance by "law enforcement" groups who simply can't be trusted.
It's very Orwellian and scary as fuck. The differences between USA and authoritarian regimes like China has diminished significantly in my lifetime.
From aggressive, violent police to warrantless searches like those outlined here average Americans are under a constant state of surveillance by "law enforcement" groups who simply can't be trusted.
It's very Orwellian and scary as fuck. The differences between USA and authoritarian regimes like China has diminished significantly in my lifetime.
Upvote
63
(64
/
-1)
That's the way it is with Conservatives. Nothing is a problem until it affects them personally.
Upvote
18
(27
/
-9)
Seeing what has become of the Republican party, I can make certain assumptions about people who willingly associate themselves with it.
If you are riding in a car and you look around, and every other occupant of the car is wearing oversized footwear and red rubber noses, you just might be riding in the clown car. And if, having realized this, you continue to ride in the clown car, you have no complaint if people mistake you for a clown.
Upvote
44
(53
/
-9)
Upvote
27
(29
/
-2)
That ain't the half of it. Everybody is surveilling and accumulating data. The credit agencies, Meta, Google, every other tech company, every advertising company, even local stores.
It bothers me when I pay cash at a brick-and-mortar store and they ask for my phone number. Why would then even do that? Because their business model is no longer selling merchandise, it is selling data.
Upvote
44
(44
/
0)
Apathy that it, in many ways, directly caused by the fact that most of our votes against incumbents DO NOT MATTER. Districts are so insanely gerrymandered (”stacked and packed”) that the likelihood of a seat being taken over competitively, either in primary or election, is tiny.
Add Citizens United to the mix and it’s damn near impossible.
Upvote
16
(22
/
-6)
Ah, yes. The government official only cares about government abuse only after it happens to them. Classic. These people are clowns.
Everyone in the government is there because they're a self absorbed power hungry narcissist. Power corrupts absolute. Nothing will change. Everyone believes they're doing the "good" thing. No one will be held accountable. They'll flap their gums and point fingers at each other.
They don't care about you or the duties they're suppose to uphold. They're all corrupt. Nothing has changed since 2013 when Snowden revealed the scope of their crimes. Not a single head has rolled. Every legal challenge against the government has been dismissed by... the government! They investigated themselves and found no wrong doing. Everything's legal when you make the laws.
Keep buying those Ring Doorbells and cell phones and using social media though so they can track and spy on you easier like the sheep you are.
Is this post sincere or satire? Maybe I'm ChatGPT? What does it matter! Poster hurt itself in confusion.
Everyone in the government is there because they're a self absorbed power hungry narcissist. Power corrupts absolute. Nothing will change. Everyone believes they're doing the "good" thing. No one will be held accountable. They'll flap their gums and point fingers at each other.
They don't care about you or the duties they're suppose to uphold. They're all corrupt. Nothing has changed since 2013 when Snowden revealed the scope of their crimes. Not a single head has rolled. Every legal challenge against the government has been dismissed by... the government! They investigated themselves and found no wrong doing. Everything's legal when you make the laws.
Keep buying those Ring Doorbells and cell phones and using social media though so they can track and spy on you easier like the sheep you are.
Is this post sincere or satire? Maybe I'm ChatGPT? What does it matter! Poster hurt itself in confusion.
Last edited:
Upvote
-5
(9
/
-14)
I kind of wish someone would play the villan in this arena. Collect data on important people and do something socially bad but perfectly legal. Then tell the the people who complain to put up or shut up. Maybe if you embarrassed or anger anough people this way something will happen? Idk, guess there is too much money to be made for people to risk this strategy
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Great. Now eliminate all other data targeting against citizens that 18,000 US police agencies have made without a warrant.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
Not true! Take, for example, Naomi Wolf’s latest article on her Substack.
Upvote
-14
(1
/
-15)
So, FISA activity by the FBI is 'illegal'... I thoght that FISA was SET UP to do LEGAL searches... Ah well, if he wasn't doing 'something' they wouldn't have reason to look... yeah, right, THAT old line. Don't ge tme wrong, there may be a valid reason for the search.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
The can rely on the mainstream media to see to it that such news does not receive wide circulation.
People need to wake up to the fact that our government no longer in in the hands of We The People. We need to get there again. Once we do, we can still have partisan fights over issues, but at least we will have liberty.
Upvote
-15
(3
/
-18)
j17robotdancer
Ars Praefectus
So republicans don't care about anyone else being spied upon but when they have their privacy violated they go thermonuclear.
Upvote
7
(13
/
-6)
You know, I hear what you are saying, but which plan do you support?
LaHood - Re-authorization of Section 702 without reform is a non-starter.
Biden - has pressured Congress to reauthorize Section 702 as is
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
One they are caught, their answer is always that they have already completely cleaned up their abuses. If anything is to be done, they will back the absolute minimum that will satisfy effective objections, such as to promise legislators protection in return for allowing open season on everyone else. Once attention passes, some will see this as a go-ahead to restart abuses "to get things done".
Those regulated can't be allowed to overly influence what can be regulated.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
It doesn't really matter. They have other, legal, ways to get that information. It just takes them more time, effort and the oversight of a judge so they do it the easy way and violate peoples rights.
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
I stopped shopping at a particular grocery chain because in order to have one of their "rewards" card you have to provide them your SS#. WTF? I don't give out my number or email. One of the things that amazes me is the dumbfounded looks and confused questions you get when you say you don't want to provide your info. It's like person asking has never considered someone might NOT want to provide personal info.
Prior to 9/11 Americans liked to pretend we were against surveillance...but when corporations (not the government) came and offered to put internet-connected devices with cameras and microphones that knew your credit card numbers, browsing history, purchase history, email contacts, etc....we collectively not only willingly put the device in our home, we PAID for the privilege to do so.
Failure to teach critical thinking in American schools has had a lot of negative consequences.
Upvote
17
(19
/
-2)
If Snowden taught us anything, it is that the law does not matter. If the data is there, it will be accessed.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Congress to FBI: Are you in favor of turning off the nearly frictionless slide that feeds data into your warrantless surveillance system.
FBI: We're going to go with a no on that.
FBI: We're going to go with a no on that.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
US needs actual privacy legislation that prevents the gathering of this data in the first place. It's time to shut down all this tracking by 3rd parties.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
I know this audience on ArsTechnica and if you had asked me a year ago what I thought of §702, I would have said it's plainly unconstitutional (and perhaps it is) and it gave the FBI far more power than they should have.
However, I recently watched a long discussion between Ben Wittes (Lawfare, Brookings) and Matt Olson (Asst AG for Nat Sec). Those who follow Wittes know while he would tend to fall on the pro-Nat Sec side, he is a very serious individual and is able to represent the civil liberties arguments.
While I am by no means sold that §702 is critical to national security or if its criticality should out-weigh my civil rights, I am also looking at it in a more nuanced way than I would have a year ago. We need to have a real discussion on §702 and the alternative tools the FBI has under FISA. It's unfortunate this is being debated now with this conspiracy-prone congress (e.g., the committee on the weaponization of the federal government).
If you're curious:
https://www.brookings.edu/events/a-...n-on-the-reauthorization-of-fisa-section-702/
However, I recently watched a long discussion between Ben Wittes (Lawfare, Brookings) and Matt Olson (Asst AG for Nat Sec). Those who follow Wittes know while he would tend to fall on the pro-Nat Sec side, he is a very serious individual and is able to represent the civil liberties arguments.
While I am by no means sold that §702 is critical to national security or if its criticality should out-weigh my civil rights, I am also looking at it in a more nuanced way than I would have a year ago. We need to have a real discussion on §702 and the alternative tools the FBI has under FISA. It's unfortunate this is being debated now with this conspiracy-prone congress (e.g., the committee on the weaponization of the federal government).
If you're curious:
https://www.brookings.edu/events/a-...n-on-the-reauthorization-of-fisa-section-702/
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
VelvetGlove
Ars Tribunus Militum
If he weren't a terrorist, the FBI wouldn't be looking at him, would they?
Upvote
17
(21
/
-4)
It sounds like they could have been looking into LaHood but were supposed to search more narrowly for the issue in question, whatever it may have been?
In either case, pulling this context up really adds to the conversation, so thanks for doing that.
Arguing about this in good faith requires context like this. If an agent was using this database to stall an ex-lover or something, that would clearly be criminal and would probably result in firing or charges (IMO, low confidence). However, should the agents in question be thrown in jail for searching a database with poor controls in place if they are investigating a credible possibility of a crime? I think the agency at least bears responsibility for how that data is made accessible.
To be clear, I think it makes absolute sense to require warrants for this sort of data search.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
As a non-US citizen, I ask: "why is it such a big problem to have the FBI do these things to US citizens, but it is OK for them to do foreigners?"
If it is fine to probe all of us without discretion, why is it horrible if they do they same to you?
If it is fine to probe all of us without discretion, why is it horrible if they do they same to you?
Upvote
16
(21
/
-5)
In our declaration of independence, we claimed that "all men are created equal". Too many in position of power seem to subscribe to the "but some are more equal"
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
The 4th amendment needs to be bolstered to account for a 21st century digital landscape.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
Expecting a new addendum to section 702 that excludes sitting and formerly sitting congresspeople
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
Yeah, requiring deputy director sign-off for illegal investigations, when they involve 'sensitive' people, is hardly reassuring. "We plan to flout the 4th Amendment of the Constitution much more judiciously and intentionally in the future." Thank you Director Wray. I am deeply reassured that you fully understand what we're all so concerned about.
Upvote
10
(12
/
-2)
If you'd like to "Opt Out" of illegal search, pease fill out this form so we can do a background check to see if we wish to comply with your wishes.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)