Read on Twitter
The Senate is voting on whether to require a warrant before the government can secretly obtain Internet searches and web browsing history.
Kind of a Big Deal happening here guys. You might want to turn on your CSPAN-2.
Seriously, history being made here.
The bipartisan effort by Wyden and Daines to block the government from secret warrantless surveillance of Web browsing and search data failed despite getting 59 votes, ***one vote shy*** of the 60-vote threshold set by the Senate.
37 voted no; 4 missed the vote.
37 voted no; 4 missed the vote.
Why is a warrant a big deal? Because a warrant requires probable cause. That& #39;s a much higher standard than the Patriot Act required to get business info.
Four Senators who did not vote
ALEXANDER
MURRAY
SANDERS
SASSE
I& #39;ve reached out to their offices. (Alexander is self-isolating because a staffer has COVID.)
ALEXANDER
MURRAY
SANDERS
SASSE
I& #39;ve reached out to their offices. (Alexander is self-isolating because a staffer has COVID.)
The full roll call vote is here. Bipartisan both pro and con. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00089">https://www.senate.gov/legislati...
NEW: Murray is flying back to DC and would have voted AYE on the Wyden/Daines Internet surveillance amendment, which failed by *1* vote https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-13/senate-blocks-warrant-rule-for-secret-internet-surveillance?sref=fjrBr5qu">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...
Thing is, even if Murray had been there (or Sanders or Sasse?) not 100% that would have changed the outcome. McConnell wanted the amendment to fail. Could he have prevailed on another R to vote no and not be vote #60?
