Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

a reply to: eNaR

Sure he had to know that something nefarious was SNUCK into the bill and were given a whole 12 hours or so to read. Face it, you hate Trump and thus your comment.

You need to spend even more time reading that article and the previous article warning us it was coming.

I voted for Donald Trump. I don't have to lock-step support everything he does. I'm not a group thinker and have no obligation to be loyal to any politician.

Get out of here with your personality cult BS.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: eNaR

Sure he had to know that something nefarious was SNUCK into the bill and were given a whole 12 hours or so to read. Face it, you hate Trump and thus your comment.

You need to spend even more time reading that article and the previous article warning us it was coming.

I voted for Donald Trump. I don't have to lock-step support everything he does. I'm not a group thinker and have no obligation to be loyal to any politician.

Get out of here with your personality cult BS.

Correct, people knew it was coming but then why is it reported it was "snuck" in. What's your take on/ how exactly do you see the use of the word 'snuck'?

a reply to: eNaR

He had the option and even threatened to veto it.

Instead, he signed it. He had his shot to do the right thing and he dropped the ball.

It's like you want to convince me that Trump is capable of picking turds up from the clean end.

a reply to: projectvxn

Hold on now we arn't trying to destroy washington dc, just the ass hats running it. lol

a reply to: eNaR

how exactly do you see the use of the word 'snuck'?

Propaganda to make one side look bad.

The UN nuts are gonna crap their pants over this one

a reply to: seagull

I very much agree.

People should be reading and things should be published for public consumption before it's a law.

I don't agree to any of this.

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: projectvxn

You voted for him. You paid the price.

This isn't just Trump, it's Congress..

At the least, shame on him for not reading what he's signing..

Since when did an omnibus spending bill become a budget?

The President only has to follow a budget. He doesn't have to spend a dime from this omnibus bill on whats suggested.

a reply to: projectvxn

I am going to assume people didnt read the actual bill and just took what the EFF said as gospel.

First -
‘Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act’’ or the ‘‘CLOUD Act’’**PDF LINK***

Second -
This does not allow any foreign government to obtain information. Any country wanting to obtain information under this act must submit a request to be allowed to submit legal documentation for records. The countries wanting approval must meet several restrictive criteria, up to and including a due process legal system, legal remedies for the individuals, no restrictions on free speech, not a violator of human rights, etc etc etc. Qualifying countries must be added by executive agreement and only those countries that are have access to this legal agreement. The Attorney General and Secretary of State must sign off and approve the country.

Third -
This bill applies solely to providers. This bill cleans up and clarifies the process to obtain electronic records. This also establishes the requirement that the foreign government requesting the information - The target must reside inside the United states and be a US citizen or lawful resident alien. It does not apply if the 2 requirements above are not met and by extension are not required to comply with any requests.

Fourth -
Contrary to what some people are talking about this bill does not allow a foreign government to issue a court order and then serve it directly to the provider. As with all other agreements dealing with legal entities of foreign government that government must submit legal documents to the US government for review, approval and service. The Attorney General the and Secretary of State MUST sign off on countries requests and it spells out the narrow parameters those requests will be honored. In these cases the US government will be acting on behalf of the requesting government (this is not new and has been around for a long time. The Kim Dot Com case out of New Zealand, which is under appeal, has the Crown Prosecutor acting on behalf of the US government in their legal system).

Fifth -
This bill allows a provider to challenge any request served.

Sixth
This bill establishes the guidelines for how long electronic records must be preserved.

Finally - All requests must comply with US law IE the foreign entities legal system submits there requests and warrants / subpoenas for the information and a reason why it is needed. A request that would violate US law / US Constitution cannot be approved and will be rejected, regardless of what the ;aaw states in the country making the request.

This bill amends current US law under title 18 to specifically address electronic material.

The claims being made by the EFF are deceptive and in some cases a flat out lie.

a reply to: eNaR

"Thanks for nothing Trump" ...R I G H T... Blame Trump instead of blaming the pathetic, and one might say corrupt, system the US runs under whereby a whopping 2,000-page bill is given out a day before it's to be signed into law.

Rand Paul read through it, and he read through it enough to know it was complete BS

Why cant Trump do the same? Hell no Trump doesnt get a pass on this, none of them do, if Rand can do it all of them can , no excuses

a reply to: SailorJerry

Because Congress is responsible for drafting laws and not the President.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SailorJerry

Because Congress is responsible for drafting laws and not the President.

The president still signs off on it

He doesnt get a pass on this, he should know wtf hes signing off on hes basically the last line of defense for this bs going through.

If he doesnt know whats in it , dont sign it, if he DOES and still signs it , he needs to be held accountable

At least we are heading to the point where we can all be spied on equally and it's not just okay for the U.S to do so.
And doesn't equality matter?

If U.S agencies can spy on me and my friends, then it only seems fair that my countries agencies can spy on Americans back.

After all, we have national security to worry about too.

a reply to: projectvxn

This isn't a Trump problem. Yes he signed it, but until we address the root cause of the issue, which is congress, we won't ever fix it. This is one of the things that should be addressed in the convention of states. Congress isn't going to fix this issue themselves.

a reply to: SailorJerry

Do you also hold the senate accountable for rogue judges? Afterall, they confirm the nominees put forth by the executive. I mean, trump isn't blameless here, but he also isn't the problem with this particular issue. Let's not forget we've had a republican controlled congress for four years now and they've done this every time.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This does not allow any foreign government to obtain information. Any country wanting to obtain information under this act must submit a request to be allowed to submit legal documentation for records. The countries wanting approval must meet several restrictive criteria, up to and including a due process legal system, legal remedies for the individuals, no restrictions on free speech, not a violator of human rights, etc etc etc. Qualifying countries must be added by executive agreement and only those countries that are have access to this legal agreement. The Attorney General and Secretary of State must sign off and approve the country.

Seek approval, fill out forms, submit request, due process, legal process, human rights, blah blah.
Since when did the head spy agencies like FBI, CIA and NSA seek approval to spy on anybody? Thats their job.

Merkels phone, Apple iPhone, Snowden revelations... you live in a pretend Universe, spouting 'legalese' from a phony baloney pulpit.

originally posted by: projectvxn

-Enable foreign police to collect and wiretap people's communications from U.S. companies, without obtaining a U.S. warrant.

-Allow foreign nations to demand personal data stored in the United States, without prior review by a judge.

-Allow the U.S. president to enter "executive agreements" that empower police in foreign nations that have weaker privacy laws than the United States to seize data in the United States while ignoring U.S. privacy laws.

-Allow foreign police to collect someone's data without notifying them about it.

-Empower U.S. police to grab any data, regardless if it's a U.S. person's or not, no matter where it is stored.

Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

This is what Donald Trump signed into freakin' law today. Everyone is making a #show out of illegal immigration when THIS is what just became law. Giving FOREIGN cops power to take our data without warrants, which then allows OUR cops to use the data against us, bypassing the 4th amendment entirely.

What kind of anti-American garbage is this?

Thanks for nothing Trump.

I hope Rand Paul challenges you next election. I'm done with you.

No one read this garbage bill, by the way. Not even POTUS himself.

It was attached as an amendment. This should bring us all together. Not against Trump, but against the machine he is the leader of that works tirelessly to destroy our rights.

You can't have my guns, my speech, any other rights. I will entertain no argument that seeks to restrict ANY rights, ever. I am done with this kind of garbage.

Indeed, this is anti-American and NWO beyond belief.

NO country should be allowed to meddle in internal affairs and citizen's lives like this - no more in USA than elsewhere.

Seems like this is a "We'll show you ours if we can se yours?" kind of deal, because nobody should accuse certain circles in USA of NOT wanting to poke their noses around in other countries.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: eNaR

He had the option and even threatened to veto it.

Instead, he signed it. He had his shot to do the right thing and he dropped the ball.

It's like you want to convince me that Trump is capable of picking turds up from the clean end.

You never answered the part of my post that said "why is it reported it was "snuck" in. What's your take on/ how exactly do you see the use of the word 'snuck'"

Did you not answer because it's easier to stick with "he could have vetoed it" instead of explaining why you think, that even though it's reported it was "snuck in", you somehow know that he knew it had been included but decided to sign the bill.

a reply to: tadaman

My first thought exactly.

These are different times and a good opportunity to consider all possibilities.