Thread: White House proposes "easing access to Internet records for FBI"

Originally Posted by Menoske

While true..the web browsing history that is mentioned is simply which URLs you visited, not what you typed in on the site, and not any form of content from the electronic communications. Basically they want to be able to follow where you go, just like they would tail a suspect and follow his/her actions in real life.

I'm a little torn on this as a security analyst, I'm all for the idea of being able to track down where someone has gone, but at the same time on a personal level I don't know if I want the FBI knowing that I visit Justin Beiber's blog.

I've not seen where their definition of the web browsing history is strictly limited to the urls.

Originally Posted by Gumby

Hmmm... I thought this guy promised less of this kind of stuff? Maybe I misquoted him

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Count...mFactSheet.pdf

Nope, I was right. From that document, which is an official, from his campaign office document entitled "Barrack Obama: The War We Need To Win":

Revise the PATRIOT Act. Barack Obama believes that we must provide law
enforcement the tools it needs to investigate, disrupt, and capture terrorists, but he
also believes we need real oversight to avoid jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all
Americans. There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil
liberties. Unfortunately, the current administration has abused the powers given to it
by the PATRIOT Act. A March 2007 Justice Department audit found the FBI
improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain
personal information about American citizens. As president, Barack Obama would
revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like
National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material
witness provision.
• Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush
Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line
between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American
citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence
committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law

I wish he would do more as well. This is one area of disappointment that nothing has been done to rescind the executive power grab of the Bush admin.....

LOL too funny Hawg.

When Bush did, it was his executive power-grab. When Obama does it, it's Bush's power-grab still? LOL-wut? Or are you saying that Obama is doing it just cause Bush did it? What, then, does that make Obama? Seriously lol man. Obama is a big boy. He can think for himself.

Bush's warrantless wiretaps were indeed executive powergrabs as well as some parts of the Patriot Act. And I am saying that I am a bit disappointed that Obama doesn't seem to have done much to reverse some of these power grabs, but instead furthering this.....

But keep on LOL'ing hater. I was agreeing that Obama is disappointing in this regard, and you still hate..... What's with the hate? Hater.

LOL? Happy now?

Originally Posted by Gumby

Why would he (Obama) rescind that power now? Its a perfect situation for him. He has all the executive power that Bush grabbed and can always blame the former President for it. Most Presidents do not relinquish additional powers gained by a previous administration. This is nothing new. Its also not the "Change" we were promised and it is, to me, a huge issue. This stabs at the very heart of what our country was founded upon. It was wrong when Bush made the power grab and it is just as wrong for Obama to not only not change it back, but to expand these powers even further. Disgusting. From my favorite T-shirt company, www.tshirthell.com:And I can agree with that.... Hence my disappointment.

Sorry for the late reply on this Alundil. Forgive my earlier description for not being specific enough. URLs would just be an example of the kinds of things that consitute electronic communication. The article in question does say that content will not be looked at with these warrantless searches (at least, I read a similar article and that's what it said).

Basically to my understanding (and of course none of this will matter until it does/does not go into effect and we see the written law) the To's and From's can be turned over, as well as the method of the communication but not what was said/sent.

I hope that clears up what I was saying earlier.