#Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act

[tieflingkisser]

Biden Opposes Bill That Would Keep Cops and Feds From Buying Your Data

The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would prevent law enforcement and intelligence agencies from purchasing data that they would otherwise need a warrant to obtain.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is once again trying to keep the government from performing an end run around the Fourth Amendment by buying people's personal data. This week, President Joe Biden indicated that he opposed the bill. H.R. 4639, known as the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, "expands prohibited disclosures of stored electronic communications" to include purchases of data by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. First introduced in 2021 by Sens. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Patrick Leahy (D–Vt.), and Mike Lee (R–Utah), the bill has been reintroduced in subsequent sessions. The current version was introduced in the House by Rep. Warren Davidson (R–Ohio) and in the Senate by Wyden and Paul. On Wednesday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and one of the House bill's cosponsors, affirmed his support on the House floor. "That anyone should have Americans' private information is highly troubling to me," Nadler said. "But that our federal government can obtain it without a warrant should be troubling to all of us." On Tuesday, the White House announced that the Biden administration "strongly opposes" the bill. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, the bill "generally would prohibit the Intelligence Community and law enforcement from obtaining certain commercially available information—subject only to narrow, unworkable exceptions." The Stored Communications Act forbids technology companies from disclosing certain subscriber information, including to the government. But certain types of data—including search histories, credit reports, employment records, and cellphone geolocation data—is "commercially available" and can be sold by third parties called data brokers. Often this data is purchased by private companies in order to better tailor their ad spending. Governments typically need a warrant to access any of that type of information—as recently as 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed in Carpenter v. United States that the government cannot access a person's cellphone location data without a warrant. "Although such records are generated for commercial purposes," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, that alone did not "negate" the plaintiff's expectation of privacy. "We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier's database of physical location information." Put simply: Come back with a warrant. But instead of honoring that decision, law enforcement and intelligence agencies just started buying the information from data brokers instead: The National Security Agency (NSA) buys people's internet metadata, and agencies within the Department of Homeland Security—including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—purchase cellphone location data. Even agencies without an explicit law enforcement mandate have gotten in on the fun: In one example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) paid $420,000 for cellphone data in order to monitor compliance with COVID-19 lockdown measures. The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would ban these transactions. Regarding customer and subscriber records obtained without a warrant, the bill "prohibits law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies from obtaining the records or information from a third party in exchange for anything of value (e.g., purchasing them)." It further prohibits other government agencies from sharing that information and prevents the records from being used in "any trial, hearing, or proceeding." Again, this should not be controversial: The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to get a warrant based upon "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation," before searching one's "persons, houses, papers, and effects."

[keep reading]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

House Speaker Mike Johnson is having another bad week, and it’s only Tuesday. He got the Republican conference together Tuesday morning to present his complicated plan for the House to vote on aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The business of the day was derailed by Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who told Johnson he’s on thin ice.

When it was just Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene making the threat to oust Johnson—and being ridiculed for it by colleagues—it was easy to ignore. Massie’s joining in changes things. As of this Friday, when Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin resigns, Johnson will have just one vote to spare—either to pass legislation with a Republican majority or to keep him in his job. He needs Democrats more than ever. Now that he’s committed to pushing through the aid package, he has a political and personal stake in getting it approved. The House Freedom Caucus is already opposed to it, and powerful Rep. Jim Jordan told Johnson he can’t count on his vote even to move the package to the floor, much less vote for it.

Johnson’s plan is to pass each package separately along with a fourth bill that’s larded up with policy priorities for the GOP to try to get them on board—the REPO Act which would direct the sale of seized Russian assets, a TikTok ban, and economic and humanitarian loans to Ukraine. Donald Trump has been pushing for loans to Ukraine instead of direct aid, so this proposal from Johnson would give a nod to that, and focus direct aid on military defense. At this point, Johnson likely can’t even get the aid bills to the floor without help from Democrats, and he sure can’t count on keeping his job without at least a few of them helping him out. But he’s already created problems for himself with the Democrats by telling Republicans they could have amendments to the aid bills—something that “wasn’t part of the conversation that Johnson had with President Joe Biden on Monday,” according to Punchbowl News’ sources.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA)'s tenure in that job may not be for long.

[mariacallous]

United States lawmakers are moving with uncommon speed to close a loophole in federal law that police and intelligence agencies use to collect sensitive information on US citizens—up to and including their physical whereabouts—all without the need for a warrant.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Defense Intelligence Agency are among several government entities known to have solicited private data brokers to access information for which a court order is generally required. A growing number of lawmakers have come to view the practice as an end run around the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable government searches and seizures. 

“This unconstitutional mass government surveillance must end,” Warren Davidson, Republican congressman from Ohio, says. 

Members of the House Judiciary Committee, led by Ohio’s Jim Jordan, a Republican, will hold a markup hearing tomorrow to consider a Davidson bill aimed at restricting purchases of Americans’ data without a subpoena, court order, or warrant. If passed into law, the legislation's restrictions would apply to federal agencies as well as state and local police departments. Known as the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, the bill is cosponsored by four Republicans and four Democrats, including the committee’s ranking member, Jerry Nadler,  a Democrat, who first introduced it alongside California Democrat Zoe Lofgren in 2021. 

Notably, the bill's protections extend to data obtained from a person's account or device even if hacked by a third party, or when disclosure is referenced by a company's terms of service. The bill's sponsors note this would effectively prohibit the government from doing business with companies such as Clearview AI, which has admitted to scraping billions of photos from social media to fuel a facial recognition tool that's been widely tested by local police departments.

“The principle here is simple,” Nadler said when the legislation was first introduced two years ago. “The government should not be allowed to purchase its way around the rules Congress has enacted to protect the privacy of American citizens.”

In addition to Davidson, Nadler, and Lofgren, the bill is cosponsored by Republicans Andy Biggs, Ken Buck, and Thomas Massie, joining two other Democrats, Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs. An aide to Jim Jordan, the Judiciary Committee's Republican chairman, signaled that he would likewise support the bill, highlighting the degree to which domestic surveillance fears have risen to supersede fractious politics. The bill had been previously introduced by a bipartisan group of senators in 2021 and had acquired more than 20 cosponsors, including Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader. However, the legislation ultimately failed to make much headway in Congress.

A report declassified last month by the nation’s top intelligence official, Avril Haines, stated that a “large amount” of “sensitive and intimate information” has been purchased by the intelligence community, including information that the US Supreme Court has previously ruled is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Senior congressional sources say many lawmakers were taken aback by the apparent breadth of the collection and of the warnings in the report about its potential to “facilitate blackmail, stalking, harassment, and public shaming.” 

Other lawmakers are alarmed by the FBI’s disclosure of having purchased location information derived from people’s cell phones. During a hearing in March, the FBI director, Christopher Wray, told senators that the bureau had “previously—as in the past—purchased some such information for a specific national security pilot project.”

Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the US Supreme Court says, when it comes to certain digital information, including that which could reveal “the whole of their physical movements.” Such data—which the court describes as “detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled”—need not be GPS-precise merely to justify a warrant. Nevertheless, the government has widely adopted the view that the Fourth Amendment does not apply when that same data is available to it commercially. 

When provided, the government's reasoning typically hinges on analysis of the landmark 2018 Carpenter v. United States decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government’s warrantless acquisition of cellular records, which can be used to track a person’s movements, had violated the rights of a 32-year-old man who'd been convicted of carrying out a string of robberies.

In its 5–4 opinion, the court refers to police demanding or “compelling” access to data, something that literal interpreters of the law say places commercial arrangements with data brokers squarely outside the scope of the court opinion. What's more, government lawyers have pointed to acknowledgment from the court that the debate over Carpenter did not consider “collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security.”

The Supreme Court has erstwhile framed the Fourth Amendment as a means to “plac[ing] obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance,” something that the Constitution’s authors deemed a “greater danger to a free people than the escape of some criminals from punishment.” Oft-cited by the court is a passage by a 19th-century American jurist: “Of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers, from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.”

What rules or guidelines do exist within the intelligence community for purchasing commercial data often justify the activity by deeming the information “publicly available,” pointing to the fact that it may be open for purchase by not only private companies but foreign governments as well. While true and worrying, that is also irrelevant, says Bob Goodlatte, the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who now works as a senior policy adviser for the Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability, a pro-privacy group.

“None of those other entities can arrest you, can charge you with a crime, try you, sentence you, imprison you, restrain you, enjoin you, fine you, tax you,” Goodlatte says. “All of those are powers of government, and any American should be concerned about the ease with which the federal government can gather information about people.”

Sean Vitka, a senior attorney at the nonprofit Demand Progress, whose slate of issues encompasses privacy and national security reforms, says domestic surveillance was proving to be one of the most bipartisan issues today in Congress, pointing not only to tomorrow’s markup hearing but a concurrent battle being fought over similar purchases by the US military. The House of Representatives last week voted to support an amendment to a defense spending bill requiring a warrant for all data typically protected by the Fourth Amendment, regardless of whether it's for sale. (The amendment was narrowed earlier in the week to exclude non-military agencies, including state and local police departments, which do not fall under the committee of jurisdiction's purview.)

The defense measure, and even the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, is a mere prelude to a much bigger fight coming this fall over what's considered the “crown jewel” of the US intelligence community: Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 

“We are now seeing momentous alignment of powerful political actors in favor of enacting major privacy protections for people in the United States,” says Vitka, “on the eve of the biggest fight over warrantless surveillance in generations.”

[feline17ff]

Info copied from linked page :)

WHAT’S GOING ON?

In Fall 2021, the US Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) amidst significant backlash from the public. The package contained some deeply misguided provisions addressing cryptocurrency that threatened software developers trying to create alternatives to Big Banks and Big Tech. We led much of the opposition through our viral campaign at dontkillcrypto.com and now we’re ready to fight its implementation. Almost two years later on August 29, the US Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published their proposed regulations on the sale and exchange of digital assets by brokers as part of their implementation of the IIJA. This rulemaking will define a “digital asset” and who qualifies as a “broker” under the tax code. We have until November 14 to submit comments so we created this page so that individuals can make their voices heard.

What exactly is the new rule being proposed?

The Treasury and IRS want to make a new rule that makes anyone “responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person” a broker. This move would require anyone deemed a broker to collect, keep and report personally-identifiable information from their users (including names, addresses and other financial information via tax forms to the IRS). This makes a lot of sense in the traditional financial (TradFi) world but gets very difficult to implement with decentralized finance (DeFi). It would force DeFi developers who don’t need or want to collect information on their users to do so, thus facilitating government financial surveillance and threatening privacy and anonymity online. Compliance with this rule and its reporting requirements would be impossible. It would essentially be forcing a central point of control where none exists. This could have catastrophic consequences for the decentralized use of digital assets by forcing centralization, creating intermediaries and rendering decentralized technology virtually impossible to access or develop in the U.S.

What are the concerns for the everyday user?

Financial data reveals some of our most sensitive personal information, including our personal interests, the causes we support, and our plans for the future. The agencies’ total failure to consider our privacy rights is outrageous given that this rule would dramatically expand the financial surveillance dragnet.

There is no reason for any of us to believe that these agencies can securely store such a massive collection of sensitive information on millions of people. In 2022, the IRS mistakenly made private information about 120,000 taxpayers publicly available and the Treasury has been hacked in the recent past. Collecting unnecessary information serves no other purpose than to put users at further risk that neither agency can protect them from.

In addition, the Fourth Amendment makes it unconstitutional for the government to force individuals or businesses to collect and report the personal information of others if they (a) don’t already collect that information as part of their business, (b) have no reason to collect that information apart from the government demand, and (c) if the information is not already voluntarily provided. The IRS and Treasury should at the very least, take this opportunity to do the right thing—interpret the statute narrowly and revise this policy accordingly by taking out the requirement for developers to stalk and surveil users of their technologies.

Will this new rule stop tax evasion, money laundering and other serious crimes?

In short, no. People who are operating illegal schemes can continue to use other means. This will not be a miracle fix for problems that exist within traditional finance. Instead, it will cause more issues than it attempts to solve. Similar rules at traditional financial institutions have backfired, allowing these crimes to flourish at some of the world’s biggest, most heavily-regulated banks. If it hasn’t worked before, why would it work now? This rule will effectively impose financial surveillance on people who are participating in the crypto-economy for legitimate purposes, while having little-to-no impact on bad actors.

So, how do I send my comments to the IRS and Treasury?

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Fight For The Future (@fightfortheftr)

Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit public comments electronically. We built this tool to make it easy for everyone to send a comment on this rulemaking. You can use the form above to let the IRS and Treasury know what you think of this new policy. It is very important to add personal stories and insights to really make an impact. You can also submit electronic submissions directly via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, indicate IRS and REG–122793–19 and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The Treasury Department and the IRS will publish any comments submitted electronically or on paper to the public docket. Once submitted, comments are public and cannot be edited or withdrawn. If necessary, you can also follow the instructions on the page for how to send paper submissions. Written or electronic comments must be received by November 14, 2023.

[vibesaresimplyatrocious]

first off, I came here because I have overthinking-abo-worldbuilding brainrot, and stayed for the incredibly good takes! thank you for fighting in the trenches of abo discourse. second, might I inquire of your pronouns?

she/her

hey i'm glad you like the jumble sale chic series and are here to have fun with the world building. it's kind of wild that no one really worldbuilds abo because it's so fucking insane of a premise that it's really the most fertile ground for world building. like, superpowers are relatively small wrench to throw in the works of our universe and get a different outcome. it's the fucking weird worlds like abo that have the most opportunity to develop.

i occasionally lurk on TikTok and i'm obsessed with the weird little TikTok acting stories. like what do you mean the government has started manually limiting how much you can blink in a day. how. why is blinking suddenly a limited resource. why do you fucking die if you run out of blinks. is the distribution truly random or is this a tool for eugenics. why has no one overthrown these worlds and also why does every public school in these acting stories have the unfettered ability to violate the fourth amendment. i want to crack open these worlds like a walnut and crawl in their corpse

[lboogie1906]

Congressman Robert Nelson Cornelius Nix Sr. (August 9, 1898 – June 22, 1987) was a politician who was born in Orangeburg, South Carolina, where his father, Nelson, was dean of South Carolina State College. He graduated from Townsend Harris High School in New York City and from Lincoln University. In 1924, he received his JD from the University of Pennsylvania and began practice in Philadelphia. He became active in Democratic politics and was elected a committeeman from the Forty-fourth Ward in 1932. He held a series of positions in a private law firm, in the Pennsylvania State Department of Revenue as special deputy attorney general, and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as special assistant deputy attorney general. In 1956 he was a delegate to the DNC.

He defeated two opponents in a special election to fill the vacancy and was sworn in on May 20, 1958. He was the first African American to represent Pennsylvania in the House of Representatives.

He served on the Veterans Affairs Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. He became chairman of the Committee of the Post Office and Civil Service. He sponsored bills to keep the Philadelphia Navy Yard and to establish a “senior service corps” that would employ people over sixty years of age. He worked for the passage of several pieces of landmark civil rights legislation, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

He became chairman of the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and led an investigation of the use of funds by defense contractors to pay foreign consultants, agents, governmental officials, and political parties. He introduced an amendment to the Foreign Military Sales Act requiring the Defense Department to provide Congress with information on the identities of and fees received by agents who negotiate arms sales transactions for American firms.

In 1978, he lost to win the nomination for an eleventh term. He remained a leader of the Thirty-second Ward until his death. The Robert C. Nix Federal Building in Pennsylvania is named in his honor. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #omegapsiphi

[graymanbriefing]

Law & Order Brief: LE Access to Public Information  Congress has introduced an amendment, "Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act,” to H.R. 7888, the “Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act". The amendment seeks to prevent law enforcement officials from accessing publicly available information during the course of investigations. Specifically, the amendment would prohibit "law enforcement from accessing commercially-available information about customers or subscribers from third-party providers—data which is widely available for non-public safety purposes". The bill would still allow law enforcement to access or purchase such information under certain circumstances (after obtaining a court order). The focus is on data broker collected information and machine-learning/AI powered bulk information (Clearview AI). The bill "extends existing privacy laws to infrastructure firms that own data cables & cell towers" and "closes loopholes that permit the intelligence community to buy or otherwise acquire metadata about Americans’ international calls, texts and emails to family and friends abroad, and obtain records about their web browsing of foreign websites".  Both the "House Law Enforcement Caucus" and the Biden Administration "strongly oppose" the amendment and the White House advised they are "working with Congress on the responsible collection, retention, and use of commercially available information in ways that protect both privacy and national security." Opponents of the bill say that "access to this data is critical because it allows law enforcement to identify and pursue leads—to 'connect the dots' as they investigate serious crimes...to gather evidence and establish probable cause for an arrest and prosecution into violent crimes like murder, kidnapping, terrorism, and other serious threats." Supporters of the bill say it would "not only stop this gross abuse of privacy, but also stands for the fundamental principle that government exists to protect, not trade away, individual rights." Supporters further advise the bill supports Fourth Amend...(CLASSIFIED, get get in real-time real-time by joining at www.graymanbriefing.com)

[channeledhistory]

Anlass zur Hoffnung für Verfechter von Freiheitsrechten bot jüngst eine Abstimmung des Repräsentantenhauses: Der „Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act“ passierte die republikanisch dominierte Kammer des Kongresses.

Im Demokratie-Ranking des Magazins The Economist firmieren die USA seit Jahren als flawed democracy. Die Gründe für diese Degradierung zur mangelbehafteten Demokratie, die das wirtschaftsliberale Blatt anführt, mögen fragwürdig sein, an der Diagnose an sich lässt sich kaum rütteln: Ein Überwachungsstaat kann nach demokratischen Maßstäben schwerlich als makellos durchgehen. Doch am 17. April dieses Jahres passierte wider Erwarten und gegen den Widerstand der Biden-Regierung der Gesetzesentwurf zum Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act das Repräsentantenhaus.

Eine schon 2021 gestartete Initiative zur Verteidigung des vierten Zusatzartikels zur Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten hatte damit einen Etappensieg erzielt. Besagter Verfassungszusatz verbrieft den Schutz vor willkürlicher Durchsuchung, Beschlagnahme und Verhaftung – solche Maßnahmen dürfen nur aufgrund von Gerichts- oder Magistratsverfügungen erfolgen, die auf stichhaltigen Gründen basieren.

Schön wär’s. 2013 machte Edward Snowden die wohl größte und erfolgreichste Public-private-Partnership überhaupt publik, eine Maschinerie der Massenüberwachung, in der das Räderwerk von Geheimdiensten und IT-Konzernen höchst wirkungsvoll verzahnt ist. Die Akteure auf der privatwirtschaftlichen Seite waren allerdings nicht allesamt mit Enthusiasmus bei der Sache, von Yahoo – damals noch ein Konzern von einiger Bedeutung – ist sogar heftiger Widerstand gegen das Ansinnen belegt, die eigene Kundschaft systematisch zu bespitzeln.

Solche Betriebsstörungen dürften in den zurückliegenden Jahren nicht ins Gewicht gefallen sein, denn seit Snowdens Enthüllungen ist vieles besser geworden – für die Überwacher, nicht für die Bürger der Vereinigten Staaten. Längst ist man in den USA dazu übergegangen, Datenbestände en gros von Data Brokers zu kaufen, statt sie Unternehmen mit geheimen Anordnungen abzupressen. Und wieder einmal beweist der Markt seine Überlegenheit, in diesem Fall eben beim Umgehen des vierten Verfassungszusatzes.

Standortdaten, Kreditkarteninformationen, Gesundheitsdaten, Hinweise auf politische Ansichten und mehr wurden zuhauf von staatlichen Stellen erworben; Polizeibehörden, die Bundessteuerverwaltung IRS, diverse Organisationen des Militärs, das FBI, die NSA gehörten zu denen, die zugriffen. Mit dem Outsourcing der Überwachung sei man aus dem Schneider, so das Kalkül, schließlich verbiete der vierte Zusatzartikel der Verfassung nur willkürliche Ausforschung der Bürger durch den Staat, nicht die durch privatwirtschaftliche Unternehmen, die dann als Lieferanten für den Staat fungieren.

Dieser Praxis, die demokratischem Verständnis offen Hohn spricht, soll mit dem Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act nun ein Riegel vorgeschoben werden. Konkret läuft das auf folgende Einschränkungen hinaus:

– Staatliche Stellen sollen nur auf Gerichtsbeschluss an Datenbestände von Datengroßhändlern (Data Brokers) gelangen, so wie es einschlägige Gesetzgebung schon fordert, wenn es um Telefongesellschaften oder Internet-Service-Anbieter geht.

– Polizeibehörden und Geheimdiensten wird der Erwerb der Daten von Personen in den USA und US-Bürgern im Ausland untersagt, wenn diese Daten aus einem Nutzer-Account oder von einem persönlichen Gerät stammen oder mittels Täuschung, Hacks, Vertragsverletzungen, Verstoß gegen Datenschutzhinweise oder Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen gewonnen wurden.

– Ausdrücklich ausgeschlossen als Datenlieferant für staatliche Stellen wird Clearview AI, ein Unternehmen, das Milliarden von Porträtfotos per Screen Scraping aus dem Web bezogen hat und aktuell mit zahlreichen Ermittlungsbehörden in den USA (und nicht nur dort) für Gesichtserkennung im Geschäft ist.

– Bestehende Gesetze zum Schutz der Privatsphäre sollen auf Unternehmen erweitert werden, die über Kabelnetze und Mobilfunkinfrastruktur verfügen.

– Gesetzeslücken werden geschlossen, die es Geheimdiensten erlauben, Metadaten von grenzüberschreitender Kommunikation amerikanischer Bürger zu kaufen oder anderweitig zu beschaffen. Gleiches gilt für Daten, die beim Besuch ausländischer Websites anfallen.

Diensteanbieter und andere Dritte verlieren ihre bisher durch das Justizministerium garantierte Immunität bei Beihilfe zu Überwachung, die nicht gesetzlich gefordert oder erlaubt ist. Insgesamt ergibt sich so ein recht pralles Paket von Schutzmaßnahmen der Privatsphäre, geschnürt von Politikern der Demokratischen Partei als auch von Republikanern. Unter letzteren ist der libertäre Senator für Kentucky Rand Paul die wohl prominenteste Figur, bei den demokratischen Initiatoren ist Ron Wyden, Senator für Oregon und langjähriger Kämpfer gegen staatliche Überwachung, besonders hervorzuheben.

Seit 2021 stießen sie und andere Unterstützer des Gesetzesentwurfs auf hartnäckigen Widerstand aus Politik, von Ermittlungsbehörden und Geheimdiensten. Das Justizministerium ließ wissen, dass der Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act den Ankauf von personenbezogenen Standortdaten unterbinden würde und damit die Möglichkeiten einschränke, vermisste Kinder aufzufinden, flüchtige Strafgefangene zu jagen oder gegen organisiertes Verbrechen zu ermitteln. Die National Sheriffs Association verbuchte die Vorlage kurzer Hand unter „Machtzuwachs für die Drogenkartelle“.

Und natürlich durfte in Zeiten geopolitischer Frontbildung auch der Hinweis nicht unterbleiben, dass es ein himmelschreiendes Unrecht sei, wenn dem amerikanischen Staat der Zugang zum heimischen Datenhandel unterbunden werde, für Russland und China aber weiterhin die Möglichkeit bestünde, sich gegen Bezahlung bei Data Brokers einzudecken. Doch offensichtlich ließ sich die Mehrheit Im Repräsentantenhaus selbst von diesem Einwand nicht schrecken: Am 17. April stimmten 219 von ihnen für den Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, 199 dagegen. Damit ist allerdings nur die Voraussetzung dafür geschaffen, dass nun im Senat über den Gesetzesentwurf entschieden wird.

Es steht eine Zitterpartie bevor. In dieser Kammer des Kongresses verfügen die Demokraten über eine knappe Mehrheit, was allerdings alles andere als eine Gewähr für demokratische Umtriebe ist: So billigte der Senat am 20. April 2024 eine zweijährige Verlängerung des Abschnitts 702 des Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), der einen Stützpfeiler der US-Massenüberwachung darstellt.

Um es mal positiv zu formulieren: Dem ausstehenden Entscheid über den Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act darf mit Spannung entgegengesehen werden.

[doineedavpnformyhomenetwork]

can you use us vpn server and tor

🔒🌍✨ Get 3 Months FREE VPN - Secure & Private Internet Access Worldwide! Click Here ✨🌍🔒

can you use us vpn server and tor

US VPN server legality

Title: The Legal Landscape of US VPN Servers: Navigating Privacy and Regulation

Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) have become an essential tool for safeguarding online privacy and security. However, the legality of VPN servers, especially those based in the United States, is a subject of debate and scrutiny.

In the US, the use of VPNs is legal, and they serve various legitimate purposes, such as protecting sensitive data from hackers and accessing region-restricted content. However, concerns arise when considering the legality of VPN servers themselves, particularly in relation to data privacy laws and government regulations.

While operating a VPN server in the US is generally legal, providers must comply with a myriad of laws, including those related to data retention, surveillance, and copyright infringement. The USA Patriot Act and the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) grant authorities broad powers to monitor online communications, which can affect VPN services operating within the country.

Moreover, VPN providers may face legal challenges if they fail to adequately protect user data or facilitate illegal activities. Recent cases have highlighted the importance of transparent privacy policies and robust security measures to mitigate legal risks.

On the other hand, VPN servers can also enhance privacy by encrypting internet traffic and masking users' IP addresses, making it more challenging for third parties to monitor online activities. This aspect aligns with the fundamental right to privacy upheld by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Ultimately, the legality of US VPN servers depends on various factors, including compliance with applicable laws and regulations, transparency in operations, and commitment to user privacy. Users should choose reputable VPN providers with clear policies and strong security practices to ensure both legal compliance and effective privacy protection.

Tor network anonymity

Title: Unveiling the Veil: Exploring the Anonymity of the Tor Network

In an era where privacy concerns loom large, the Tor network emerges as a beacon of anonymity, offering users a veil of secrecy over their online activities. But what exactly is the Tor network, and how does it ensure anonymity?

The Tor network, short for The Onion Router, operates on the principle of onion routing, where data is encrypted multiple times and then sent through a series of nodes before reaching its destination. Each node in the network peels back a layer of encryption, much like layers of an onion, hence the name. This process makes it incredibly difficult for anyone monitoring the network to trace the data back to its source.

One of the key features of the Tor network is its decentralized nature. Unlike traditional networks where data passes through centralized servers, Tor relies on a distributed network of volunteer-operated servers called relays. This decentralization ensures that there is no single point of failure and enhances the network's resilience against censorship and surveillance.

Moreover, Tor offers users the ability to access the dark web, a part of the internet not indexed by traditional search engines. While the dark web has garnered a reputation for illicit activities, including the sale of drugs and weapons, it also serves as a platform for whistleblowers, journalists, and activists to communicate anonymously and evade censorship.

However, it's essential to recognize that Tor's anonymity is not foolproof. While it significantly reduces the risk of surveillance and tracking, it does not guarantee complete anonymity. Users must still exercise caution and employ additional security measures, such as using end-to-end encryption and practicing good online hygiene.

In conclusion, the Tor network stands as a vital tool for preserving online privacy and circumventing censorship. By understanding its principles and limitations, users can navigate the digital landscape with greater confidence in their anonymity and security.

VPN vs Tor security

When it comes to online security and privacy, two popular tools often come into discussion: VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) and Tor (The Onion Router). Both serve the purpose of masking users' IP addresses and encrypting their internet traffic, but they operate in different ways and offer varying levels of security.

VPN: A VPN creates a secure, encrypted tunnel between the user's device and the VPN server. This encryption ensures that any data transmitted over the internet is scrambled and unreadable to third parties, including hackers, government agencies, and ISPs (Internet Service Providers). VPNs are commonly used by individuals and businesses to protect sensitive information, bypass geo-restrictions, and enhance anonymity online. However, it's important to choose a reputable VPN provider that does not log user activity and offers strong encryption protocols.

Tor: Tor, on the other hand, routes internet traffic through a network of volunteer-operated servers called nodes. Each node in the Tor network encrypts the data before passing it to the next node, creating multiple layers of encryption like an onion (hence the name "The Onion Router"). This process makes it extremely difficult for anyone to trace the origin and destination of the data, thereby enhancing privacy and anonymity. Tor is often used by individuals who require the highest level of anonymity online, such as journalists, whistleblowers, and activists. However, Tor can be slower than VPNs due to the multiple layers of encryption and the volunteer nature of its network.

In conclusion, both VPNs and Tor offer valuable security and privacy benefits, but they cater to different needs and priorities. VPNs are convenient for everyday use, offering a balance between security, speed, and usability. On the other hand, Tor provides the highest level of anonymity but sacrifices speed and convenience in the process. Ultimately, the choice between VPN and Tor depends on the user's specific requirements and threat model.

Combining VPN and Tor

Combining VPN and Tor can provide a powerful level of online security and privacy. Both technologies offer distinct advantages, and when used together, they create a robust shield against potential threats and surveillance.

A Virtual Private Network (VPN) encrypts your internet connection, hiding your IP address and online activities from prying eyes. It reroutes your internet traffic through secure servers, protecting your data from cybercriminals and hackers. VPNs also allow you to access geo-restricted content and improve your online anonymity.

On the other hand, The Onion Router (Tor) anonymizes your internet browsing by routing your traffic through a series of volunteer-operated servers. Each server adds an extra layer of encryption, making it extremely difficult for anyone to trace your online behavior back to you. Tor is popular among journalists, activists, and individuals seeking to evade censorship and surveillance.

By combining VPN and Tor, you can maximize your online privacy and security. When you connect to a VPN before accessing the Tor network, you add an additional layer of encryption to your traffic, further concealing your online activities. This dual-layered approach enhances your anonymity and protects your data from various online threats.

However, it's essential to note that combining VPN and Tor may slow down your internet connection due to the multiple encryption layers and rerouted traffic. Additionally, some websites may block access from Tor exit nodes, requiring additional configuration to bypass these restrictions.

In conclusion, the combination of VPN and Tor offers a heightened level of online privacy and security. By understanding how each technology works and their respective benefits, you can create a more secure online environment for your internet activities.

US VPN server performance

Title: Evaluating US VPN Server Performance: Factors to Consider

In the realm of virtual private networks (VPNs), the performance of servers, particularly those located in the United States, holds significant importance for users seeking privacy, security, and reliable internet connectivity. Understanding the key factors influencing US VPN server performance is crucial for making informed decisions regarding VPN service providers.

Server Locations: The geographical distribution of VPN servers across the US impacts performance. Providers with servers strategically placed in major cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago tend to offer better speeds and lower latency for users across the country.

Bandwidth Capacity: The bandwidth allocated to each server directly affects its performance. High-capacity servers can accommodate more users without sacrificing speed, ensuring a smoother browsing experience for subscribers.

Server Load: The number of users connected to a server at any given time affects its performance. Overloaded servers may experience slower speeds and higher latency, especially during peak hours. VPN providers employing load-balancing techniques can mitigate this issue by distributing user traffic evenly across multiple servers.

Protocols and Encryption: The VPN protocol and encryption methods utilized by providers impact both security and performance. While robust encryption ensures data privacy, it can also introduce overhead that slows down connection speeds. Opting for VPN protocols like OpenVPN or WireGuard, known for their balance of security and speed, can enhance overall performance.

Network Infrastructure: The quality and reliability of a VPN provider's network infrastructure play a crucial role in server performance. Providers with robust networks, including redundant servers and optimized routing, can offer more stable and consistent connections to users.

In conclusion, when evaluating US VPN server performance, considering factors such as server locations, bandwidth capacity, server load, protocols, encryption, and network infrastructure is essential. By prioritizing these aspects, users can select VPN services that deliver optimal performance, ensuring a seamless and secure online experience.

[michaelgabrill]

Upcoming: H.R. 4639 Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act

H.R. 4639 Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, sponsored by , is scheduled for a vote by the House of Representatives on the week of April 15th, 2024. https://ift.tt/oDXH9rI

[makethesausage]

Upcoming: H.R. 4639 Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act

H.R. 4639 Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, sponsored by , is scheduled for a vote by the House of Representatives on the week of April 15th, 2024.

[lakelandg]

Sheriff Judd fights the "Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale" Act

“We are living in dangerous times, where once again politicians want to give criminals more rights than victims. I have spent my entire adult life in law enforcement, going after bad guys and fighting legislation that hurts victims instead of helping them. The ‘Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act’ is another step in the wrong direction. If this bill passes, it WILL allow crime to go UP and our…

[the-eternal-quest-for-balance]

Sheriff Judd fights the "Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale" Act

[ericvanderburg]

Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act Goes Back to Congress

http://securitytc.com/SsMrqM