Senate to vote on requiring social media to report suspiciou

Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

14 Jul 2015, 2:15 pm

Quote:
On Wednesday July 15th, 2015, the Senate will vote on a measure that would require social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to report suspected terrorist activity to Federal authorities. This is part of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2016.

While the feds say this is to protect social media companies who do report, and not a way to coerce them into spying, the measure specifically calls on social media sites to proactively monitor sites for content instead of just removing it. The vague language of the bill combined with the government's tendency to paint opponents as dangerous or terrorists leaves enough room for this bill to take on a life of its own very quickly....

ActivistPost.com: "Senate to vote on requiring social media to report suspicious activity to feds" (July 14, 2015)
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/07/sen ... ocial.html


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,027

14 Jul 2015, 2:30 pm

It'll never stand up to any amount of judicial scrutiny.

The service providers can't be compelled to use their own resources to spy on their own customers. Not their responsibility.

Taking that responsibility would also expose them to legal liabilities. If they accept that they have to spy on their own customers and then do a less than perfect job, someone will get hurt and someone will sue.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

14 Jul 2015, 2:43 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
It'll never stand up to any amount of judicial scrutiny.

The service providers can't be compelled to use their own resources to spy on their own customers. Not their responsibility.

Taking that responsibility would also expose them to legal liabilities. If they accept that they have to spy on their own customers and then do a less than perfect job, someone will get hurt and someone will sue.

Certainly not after the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, No. 14-275, ( http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... iculture-2 ) which determined that "...The Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property. In this case, any net proceeds the raisin growers receive from the sale of the reserve raisins goes to the amount of compensation they have received for that taking; it does not mean the raisins have not been appropriated for government use. Nor can the government make raisin growers relinquish their property without just compensation as a condition of selling their raisins in interstate commerce...."


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


chapstan
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 183
Location: Munfordville, Ky

14 Jul 2015, 2:54 pm

A U,

I don't get the connection you are making between the social media "spying" and the Supreme Court decision about raisin s and just compensation.

Do you think this new law would apply to websites where someone like Dylan Roof posting about homicidal intent?



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

14 Jul 2015, 2:57 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
It'll never stand up to any amount of judicial scrutiny.

The service providers can't be compelled to use their own resources to spy on their own customers. Not their responsibility.

Taking that responsibility would also expose them to legal liabilities. If they accept that they have to spy on their own customers and then do a less than perfect job, someone will get hurt and someone will sue.

Certainly not after the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, No. 14-275, ( http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... iculture-2 ) which determined that "...The Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property. In this case, any net proceeds the raisin growers receive from the sale of the reserve raisins goes to the amount of compensation they have received for that taking; it does not mean the raisins have not been appropriated for government use. Nor can the government make raisin growers relinquish their property without just compensation as a condition of selling their raisins in interstate commerce...."
Raisin growers aren't considered safe harbours. Compelling content providers to police their own userbases renders safe harbour status moot.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

14 Jul 2015, 3:04 pm

chapstan wrote:
A U,

I don't get the connection you are making between the social media "spying" and the Supreme Court decision about raisin s and just compensation.

Do you think this new law would apply to websites where someone like Dylan Roof posting about homicidal intent?

Now that the Court has determined that the federal government can't "take" personal property as it had with real property, I believe that intellectual property (data) would be covered by the raisin opinion. As such, the planned U.S. Senate vote tomorrow might head directly into a court challenge. Certainly, EFF.org, EIPC.org and ACLU.org would have things to say about the legislation. And, yes, the public intent of this legislation is to allow for the surveillance of "pre-crime" evidence in situations like to Roof shootings. But, my guess is that the real intent is something altogether different.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,027

14 Jul 2015, 3:31 pm

The federal government already engages in extremely broad surveillance.

However, the dirty little secret of big data is that knowing doesn't equal comprehension.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,399

14 Jul 2015, 5:49 pm

That law makes sense to me. Why not find out who will blow up what ahead of time and stop it? Who would have ever thunk?



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

14 Jul 2015, 6:04 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
That law makes sense to me. Why not find out who will blow up what ahead of time and stop it? Who would have ever thunk?

As long as the investigation is conducted constitutionally. Judges don't sign warrants that begin with "we have a hunch...."


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)