Connect with us

News

House passes bill requiring warrant to purchase data from third parties

Published

on

House passes bill requiring warrant to purchase data from third parties

The House on Wednesday approved a bill that would limit how the government can purchase data from third parties — legislation that scored a vote after negotiations with a group of GOP colleagues who briefly tanked a vote on warrantless spy powers.

Dubbed the Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale, the legislation passed 219-199. It requires law enforcement and other government entities to get a warrant before buying information from third-party data brokers who purchase information gleaned from apps.

Division over the bill forged familiar fault lines to those seen in the debate over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), linking both conservatives and progressives who want greater privacy protections and pitting them against members from both parties who fear such protections could undercut an important law enforcement tool.

Those in favor of the bill argue the government should have to get a warrant before buying the commercially available information to carry out law enforcement activities.

“If the government wants to track a suspect today, they could go through the trouble of establishing probable cause and getting a warrant. Or federal law enforcement could simply purchase data from a third party about the target of their operation,” House Judiciary ranking member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the bill, said during debate.

Advertisement

“If that purchased data included location data for their subject, they would have no need for checks and balances, no need for a warrant, and during an ensuing criminal trial, no obligation even to tell the court how they obtained the initial data in the first place.”

“We have the Fourth Amendment for a reason,” Nadler continued. “If law enforcement wants to gather information about you, they should first obtain a warrant.”

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), the sponsor of the bill, pegged it as a reinforcement of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“The reality is the technology today effectively puts the government everywhere we go. We all essentially have a digital ID, a phone number. And we carry it with us. It’s tracked. It goes to your car. Your car spies on you as well. This data is being collected,” he said.

“Nothing in this bill would prohibit a search paid for or otherwise of public information. It would, however, restore privacy protections, grossly infringed by current practices.”

Advertisement

Still, it garnered pushback from House Intelligence Committee members, the White House and voices in the law enforcement community.

“It generally would prohibit the intelligence community and law enforcement from obtaining certain commercially available information — subject only to narrow, unworkable exceptions. It does not affect the ability of foreign adversaries or the private sector to obtain and use the same information, thus negating any privacy benefit to U.S. persons while threatening America’s national security,” the White House wrote in a statement of administrative policy.

“Responsible access to, and use of, commercially available information is critical to scores of vital missions carried out on behalf of the American people.”

House Intelligence Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) argued the bill was poorly written, with broad language and few exceptions.

“The bill bans law enforcement from paying for information available to any willing buyer in all contexts. There is no exception. Zero. There is no exception to even allow law enforcement to pay for stolen information to investigate and solve identity theft, data theft, data breaches, ransomware attacks. The bill will not make people safer,” he said.

Advertisement

The bill was a top priority of GOP privacy hawks in the House, who negotiated a stand-alone vote for the legislation after failing to attach it to the broader legislation reauthorizing FISA 702. 

But Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ahead of its separation from FISA 702, said the fast-tracking of the bill left for little consideration of something that would have sweeping consequences.

“What are we going to do? We’re going to prohibit the CIA from buying data without ever having a hearing in Intel?” Himes said last week before it was clear the provision would get its own vote on the House floor.

“It’s very saddening because it’s a super interesting topic. We probably should regulate it maybe more than we are today. But it just should not be brought out of nowhere.”

Senior administration officials said the measure would blind U.S. intelligence outfits from getting information easily purchased by foreign intelligence operations. 

Advertisement

“In practice, these standards make it impossible for the [intelligence community], law enforcement to acquire a whole host of readily available information that they currently rely on,” an administration official said.

“Covered customer records as defined in the bill is very broad and includes records pertaining to any U.S. person or indeed any foreigner inside the United States. And as a practical matter, there’s often no way to establish whether a particular individual was in the U.S. at a particular time a piece of data was created. Unless you did one thing, which is paradoxically to intrude further into their privacy just to figure out whether you could obtain some data.”

“It can be impossible to know what’s in a data set before one actually obtains a data set,” the official continued. “So you’d be barred from getting that which you don’t even know.”

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Israel kills elite Hizbollah commanders in Beirut strike, IDF says

Published

on

Israel kills elite Hizbollah commanders in Beirut strike, IDF says

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Israel said on Friday it had killed senior Hizbollah commanders in an air strike on the militants’ stronghold of southern Beirut, a devastating assault on the group that heightened fears of a full-blown war.

Hizbollah’s special operations commander Ibrahim Aqil was killed along with at least 10 members of the “senior chain of command of the Radwan Force”, an elite unit within the group, the Israel Defense Forces said.

The group confirmed late on Friday that Aqil was killed in the Israeli attack, and described him as one of its “greatest leaders”.

Advertisement

Aqil’s death is arguably the most damaging blow Israel has struck against Hizbollah, Lebanon’s dominant political and military force, since the movement’s formation in the early 1980s.

The Radwan Force is the arm of Hizbollah responsible for cross-border operations into Israel and defending southern Lebanon against a ground invasion. Israel has been targeting the Radwan for months, with the stated aim of pushing it back from the border.

Undated photo of Ibrahim Aqil who is said to have been the target of Israel’s air strike © US Department of State

Striking Hizbollah’s top commanders on such a scale would also deal a blow to Iran, which considers the Lebanese group its main proxy and closest ally in the region.

The attack comes after Israel said it was entering a “new phase” of its nearly year-long conflict with Hizbollah, which had previously been largely contained to the Israeli-Lebanese border region.

It will increase pressure on Hizbollah to respond robustly, even though it is in disarray after consecutive days of assaults on its military capability and wary of being drawn into full-blown war with a far more sophisticated army.

Advertisement

Hizbollah has not confirmed that Aqil was in the building at the time of the strike. Lebanese authorities said 14 people were killed and 66 wounded.

Lebanon’s state-run news agency reported that an F-35 warplane launched four missiles into the southern Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh, striking a residential building. Israel’s military said the commanders were killed while conducting a meeting under the building.

The strike capped a week of deadly mass detonations of Hizbollah’s communications devices that killed 37 people and injured thousands more. Hizbollah has blamed the attacks on Israel, which has not directly commented.

The Israeli strike was the second targeting of a senior Hizbollah commander in southern Beirut since the conflict erupted last October. A July strike on a residential building in the capital killed Fuad Shukr, Hizbollah’s top military commander.

Aqil, like Shukr, was one of the group’s earliest founding members and sat on Hizbollah’s Jihad Council, its highest military body, according to four people familiar with Hizbollah’s operations. After Shukr’s killing, Aqil took over some of the slain commander’s responsibilities, said the people.

Advertisement

The US suspected Aqil of involvement in attacks 41 years ago in Beirut at the US and French barracks, which killed 307 people, and the US embassy, which killed 63.

People inspect the site of an Israeli strike in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon
The aftermath of an Israeli attack on Lebanon’s capital © Mohamed Azakir/Reuters

Lebanon’s civil defence authorities said rescue efforts on Friday were ongoing, with people still being pulled from the rubble after two residential buildings collapsed.

Television footage circulating showed burnt-out cars and large piles of debris covering a narrow street.

The strike came amid intensifying salvos between Israeli forces and Hizbollah, which have been exchanging cross-border fire since the group started launching rockets at Israel on October 8, the day after Hamas’s attack on the Jewish state.

The UN’s special co-ordinator for Lebanon, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, called the strike “another alarming escalation”. “We are witnessing an extremely dangerous cycle of violence,” she said. “This must stop now.”

Map showing Dahiyeh suburb strike by Israel in Lebanon

On Thursday night, the Israeli military said its jets struck about 100 rocket launchers in Lebanon that were due to fire at Israel “in the immediate future”. It was one of Israel’s heaviest rounds of strikes on Lebanon since the start of the war.

Hizbollah fired more than 140 rockets at Israeli-controlled territory on Friday, according to the Israeli military, sparking fires in several areas. There were no immediate reports of casualties.

Advertisement

Following the strike on Beirut, Hizbollah said it had launched more rocket salvos targeting what it said were defence installations, including one military intelligence headquarters it said was “responsible for assassinations”.

US National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said Washington still did not see a wider war as “inevitable”.

“We don’t want to see escalation. We don’t want to see a second front in this war opened up,” Kirby said. “Everything we’re doing is going to be to try to prevent that outcome.”

Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, who condemned the “criminal” attacks this week, said he had requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. “All the communications I received yesterday from senior international officials confirmed that the Israeli enemy crossed red lines,” he said.

Mikati said he would head to the US for talks on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly “to assert that there is still space available for a diplomatic solution”.

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Malaika Kanaaneh Tapper in Beirut and Felicia Schwartz in Washington

Continue Reading

News

No needles required: The FDA approves an at-home flu vaccine

Published

on

No needles required: The FDA approves an at-home flu vaccine

A fifth-grader receives the FluMist influenza virus vaccine in Anaheim, Calif., in 2015.

Jeff Gritchen/Digital First Media/Orange County Register via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jeff Gritchen/Digital First Media/Orange County Register via Getty Images

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first flu vaccine that people can administer to themselves at home.

The agency on Friday gave the green light for people who have been screened to give themselves the FluMist nasal spray, which can be ordered directly from an online pharmacy, skipping the need to visit a doctor’s office.

It will still require a prescription from a doctor’s office, however. It’s expected to be available next year.

Advertisement

FluMist itself is not new — the live attenuated influenza vaccine has had FDA approval for more than two decades. But the ability for adults to order the vaccine at home to administer to people ages 2 to 49 is a breakthrough in convenience and access to preventative care.

“Getting vaccinated each year is the best way to prevent influenza, which causes illness in a substantial proportion of the U.S. population every year and may result in serious complications, including hospitalization and death,” said Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“This approval adds another option for vaccination against influenza disease and demonstrates the FDA’s commitment to advancing public health,” Marks added.

In addition to providing the convenience to get the vaccine delivered right to your door, the nasal spray option could encourage more people who have fears of doctors or needles to inoculate themselves against the flu.

Advertisement

The FluMist nasal spray will be made available through a third-party online pharmacy, where people will complete a screening process to check eligibility. The FDA does recommend that a caregiver administer the spray to children between the ages of 2 and 17.

Continue Reading

News

Election 2024 Polls: Florida

Published

on

Election 2024 Polls: Florida

About our polling averages

Our averages include polls collected by The New York Times and by FiveThirtyEight. The estimates adjust for a variety of factors, including the recency and sample size of a poll, whether a poll represents likely voters, and whether other polls have shifted since a poll was conducted.

We also evaluate whether each pollster: Has a track record of accuracy in recent electionsIs a member of a professional polling organizationConducts probability-based sampling

These elements factor into how much weight each poll gets in the average. And we consider pollsters that meet at least two of the three criteria to be “select pollsters,” so long as they are conducting polls for nonpartisan sponsors. Read more about our methodology.

The Times conducts its own national and state polls in partnership with Siena College. Those polls are included in the averages. Follow Times/Siena polling here.

Advertisement

Sources: Polling averages by The New York Times. Individual polls collected by FiveThirtyEight and The Times.

Continue Reading

Trending