I have to admire the double-dipping business model of private companies getting paid by local governments to setup surveillance cameras and harvest data. Then the same goverment will pay to get warrantless access to that same data.
My chosen interpretation is that they've let it expire because they've found enough ways to spy on us that they don't need it. Ranging from getting everything they need from advertising companies and Flock, to just ignoring the law and doing it anyway because they know it won't be enforced.
Is there one person here who can explain why we need this extended? If not, why do we always do it (regardless of who's in the White House)?
As far as I'm aware, there is a short list of sworn representatives (we actively chose) who have a perfect or near-perfect voting record against it, and everyone else do not. Those people are Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Chip Roy (R-TX) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
10 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 43.6 ms ] threadoh wait, it could still be renewed/recreated
> Democrats have refused to back an extension of Section 702 unless Trump reverses his decision to name Pulte as acting DNI
I guess it's their only card to play but still, how about no warrantless anything considering there's a Constitution and all that
They are interchangeable pieces these days.
As far as I'm aware, there is a short list of sworn representatives (we actively chose) who have a perfect or near-perfect voting record against it, and everyone else do not. Those people are Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Chip Roy (R-TX) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)