Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There are already regulations in place to protect people against unwarranted searches. There's nothing in those laws that even suggests "this doesn't apply to personal email".

This is just scaremongering combined with a deliberate abuse of power on order to trick a compliant public into even more repressive laws.

This is not about less or more regulation, this is about burying new regulation removing people's rights hidden unnecessary fake regulation.

Useful new regulation regarding the internet is very, very rare. 99% of it is a cover for something else.

And of course the biggest giveaway is that internet should have lead to less regulation, because all kinds of physical restrictions no longer apply or are impossible to enforce. But we don't see proposals for that, now do we?



What is repressive about enabling Yahoo to share Netflow information with Verizon and the USG during a sustained denial of service attack?


I don't recall seeing a definition of a "attack" when I skimmed the bill. Since every website is always under "attack", what's to stop a company from handing over everything, all the time?


My understanding of the situation is that the government has taken the position that warrants are only needed for e-mail that has been stored for less than 180 days. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/when-will-our-email-be...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: