Reply
  • May 14, 2020
    bot

    Stop letting old ass people decide on matters they don't know nothing about or know how it works. Since Mark Zuckerbergs testimony, it showed the congress don't know s*** about technology.

    riot when?

    Never.

  • May 14, 2020

    tbh they've been doing this already

  • May 14, 2020

    Lmaooo bernie sanders such a fraud

  • May 14, 2020

    They been doing that s*** let's be honest

  • May 14, 2020
    ·
    1 reply

    I'm pretty sure less than 1% of Americans even know about the bill.

  • May 14, 2020
    Mango
    · edited

    Quote me if you're a pedophile

    they live

  • May 14, 2020
    Olsen

    Nobody politician cares about us anymore.. not even a little

    anymore

  • May 14, 2020
    JaeRell

    I'm pretty sure less than 1% of Americans even know about the bill.

    and this is probably the biggest issue of it all. they get to write the papers. if we break the rules written onto those papers, we get arrested and "ignorance of the law is no excuse", even when people don't know what rules are being drafted against them

  • May 14, 2020
    ·
    1 reply

    i'm gonna keep it real with you chief they were already doing that for the past 20 years

  • May 14, 2020
    ·
    1 reply

    Mitch McConnell is among the very worst people on earth.

  • loveu

    This is actually sad as s***

    this country has gone to absolute s***

  • May 14, 2020

    P*** addicts itt fuming

  • May 14, 2020
    Noir

    Mitch McConnell is among the very worst people on earth.

    The whole GOP is reprehensible at this point minus Romney

  • May 14, 2020
    ·
    edited

    FBI gon’ be really disappointed with how much time I spend on KTT2

  • May 14, 2020
    ·
    edited

    -what people who don't do d**** say about d*** laws

    -what white people say to black people who are afraid of being killed by police

    -what documented people say to undocumented immigrants

    get real dude, this is an infringement on my rights and your's too (if you're in the U.S.)

  • May 14, 2020
    ·
    1 reply

    Most people don't worry about laws like this because they're worried about being exposed for weird p*** or something. They worry for two reasons; either firstly, that they looked at something which they could be retroactively prosecuted for - say, you looked at Wikileaks documents but then they make accessing leaked Wikileaks documents from officials illegal (theoretically), and then backwardly prosecute you for such. Although you aren't supposed to be prosecuted retroactively according to US law, it has happened before by upper-level courts.
    Secondly, people worry less about this for the average person and more about how this affects public figures, such as activists. The FBI & CIA do not have a great track record in that regard; if you are an activist or politician and say something unpopular, if you have anything in your history which can be used against you - even the smallest thing - it basically will be, even if it's selectively done.
    Most of these times these things do not affect the average person - but they are laws from which more oppressive standards are built from. Take a look at the FBI and entrapping "terrorists" by radicalizing them themselves in honeypots then arresting them for example (this has happened a number of times in regards to "teenager wants to join ISIS" type clickbait stories) - the FBI can now look up theoretically who they want to honeypot, even though many of these people may never actually be terrorists otherwise, the FBI just thinks they will be.

  • May 14, 2020
    ·
    1 reply

    ... werent they already doing this with the patriot act? This was just to remove it correct?

  • May 14, 2020
    krishna bound

    Most people don't worry about laws like this because they're worried about being exposed for weird p*** or something. They worry for two reasons; either firstly, that they looked at something which they could be retroactively prosecuted for - say, you looked at Wikileaks documents but then they make accessing leaked Wikileaks documents from officials illegal (theoretically), and then backwardly prosecute you for such. Although you aren't supposed to be prosecuted retroactively according to US law, it has happened before by upper-level courts.
    Secondly, people worry less about this for the average person and more about how this affects public figures, such as activists. The FBI & CIA do not have a great track record in that regard; if you are an activist or politician and say something unpopular, if you have anything in your history which can be used against you - even the smallest thing - it basically will be, even if it's selectively done.
    Most of these times these things do not affect the average person - but they are laws from which more oppressive standards are built from. Take a look at the FBI and entrapping "terrorists" by radicalizing them themselves in honeypots then arresting them for example (this has happened a number of times in regards to "teenager wants to join ISIS" type clickbait stories) - the FBI can now look up theoretically who they want to honeypot, even though many of these people may never actually be terrorists otherwise, the FBI just thinks they will be.

    great points!

  • May 14, 2020
    hoopsplayer21

    it's lit!

  • May 14, 2020
    Mango
    · edited

    Quote me if you're a pedophile

    Western world conditioned to be complacent, you hate to see it.

  • May 14, 2020

    like they weren't before

  • May 14, 2020
    ·
    edited

    furthermore, this is a foot in the door. even if this doesn't seem to be a huge step in the stripping of privacy rights regarding our own personal data, it's just inching forward until it trickles down enough to where i am affected by this.

    any of our stripped rights can be politicized and in 2020, people can be manipulated and broken down more than ever. read this quote from Richard Nixon's former Domestic Policy Chief:

    "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.

    "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."

    google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

    i don't trust anyone who wants to be able to arrest me easier

  • May 14, 2020
    CactusJackSentYa

    Looking through another mans internet history

    Asking for permission to see another man's internet history

  • May 14, 2020
    ·
    7 replies

  • May 14, 2020
    Mango
    · edited

    Quote me if you're a pedophile

    Bingo