- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
In a letter sent Thursday to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the lawmakers say that because VPNs obscure a user’s true location, and because intelligence agencies presume that communications of unknown origin are foreign, Americans may be inadvertently waiving the privacy protections they’re entitled to under the law.
Several federal agencies, including the FBI, NSA, and FTC, have recommended that consumers use VPNs to protect their privacy. But following that advice may inadvertently cost Americans the very protections they’re seeking.
The letter was signed by members of the Democratic Party’s progressive flank: Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Alex Padilla, along with Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs.
You must log in or register to comment.
I hate the way this is getting it twisted.
Just because your signal is misinterpreted does not mean you’ve waived your rights. It means their system and it’s use of citizen’s data is flawed and violates the law.
I thought the law said that inadvertent collection has to be deleted asap not that you forfeited your rights.
…Americans may be inadvertently waiving the privacy protections they’re entitled to under the law.
We have no protections and no privacy, laws or no.
Old news… If you are using a VPN, it’s “foreign communications” and subject to spying; and if you aren’t using a VPN, they route the data through a room that’s considered a foreign enclave (like an embassy), turning it into “foreign communications” and subject to spying.
Not sure if you’re being facetious, but you’re actually correct.
So in the US, locking your metaphorical doors or windows, or closing your digital curtains, means that authorities can presume you are hiding something and your 4th Amendments rights cease to be valid.
All while abusing Third Party Doctrine to buy your data from advertisers and Palantir anyway.
If a VPN routing of someone in Chicago is via Texas and California, what judge would see that as “foreign”? Oh, right, one of their idiot ones they like to give cases like this.
Lmao, what privacy protections? This is the land of the grift, you’re more protected using a VPN than without one.
Things keep going on their current path, I’ll be using i2p fairly soon.
I wonder how the goberment feels about that?
Edit: spelling
How is that different than Tor?
I2p is mostly a seperate network where everyone acts as a node. Its fast enough to torrent. The clearweb is accessible but it was added on as an after-thought. Personal sites are easy to set up. You can search for things in I2P. Nothing is really indexed in Tor afaik.
Tor is slow and is designed to access the clearweb with the darkweb as an after-thought. According to Mental Outlaw. Again, I have no experience, just going by what I’ve heard.
