wait a second
Paul (R-KY) voted to fuck us on this topic......given he isn't his father, but he isn't usually this kind of a scum sucker on this specific topic at least
and these are our heroes on digital information abuse?
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
a large list of people I know were influential in pushing and shoveling the Patriot Act and about a dozen even more insane revisions of it +NDAA etc.
wut gives
Statement of Purpose: To remove internet website browsing information and search history from scope of authority to access certain business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.
I mean is to remove it good or bad?
USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020
LOOK AT THE NAME OF THIS BILLL.........LMAO
I'm going to have to read more than headlines to figure this one out
This bill reauthorizes through December 1, 2023, provisions related to intelligence gathering under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) and amends FISA-related provisions.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation may not seek certain FISA-authorized orders to obtain (1) call detail records on an ongoing basis, (2) a tangible thing where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would typically be required, or (3) cellular or GPS location information.
In applications for certain FISA-authorized orders to obtain information or conduct surveillance, the applicant must certify that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has received any information that might raise doubts about the application. The bill imposes additional requirements on FISA-authorized orders targeting a (1) U.S. person, or (2) federal elected official or candidate.
The bill increases criminal penalties for violations related to electronic surveillance conducted under color of law or false statements made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court).
The bill broadens the criteria for when a FISA court decision shall be declassified and requires the declassification review and release of such opinions within 180 days of an opinion being issued.
The bill broadens the FISA court's authority to appoint an amicus curiae (an outside party that assists in consideration of a case) and expands such amici's powers, such as the power to ask the court to review a decision.
Each agency that submits applications to the FISA court shall appoint an officer responsible for compliance with FISA requirements.
H.R.6172 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Ok, so unless I am reading impaired, possible....doing this without my glasses on, the YEA votes increased restrictions and requirements FISA courts needed to obtain your browser information, etc.
the NAY votes did not. Since you said yourself it did not pass and that is a good thing and I also see more Yea votes than I do Nay votes. This makes sense I suppose.
Again please correct me where I am wrong here.
SO YOUR LISTS ARE BACKWARDS........
NAYs=cocksuckers
Yeas=less of a cocksucker on this issue
Also noticed this, Sanders (I-VT), Not Voting
of course he didn't........why would he take a stance on an important issue like this?
THE STATE IS GREAT