Senate May Vote On NSA Reform As Soon As Next Week 127
apexcp writes Senate Majority Leader (for now) Harry Reid announced he will be taking the USA FREEDOM Act to a floor vote in the Senate as early as next week. While the bill, if passed, would be the first significant legislative reform of the NSA since 9/11, many of the act's initial supporters have since disavowed it, claiming that changes to its language mean it won't do enough to curb the abuses of the American surveillance state
Re: (Score:1)
And that leaves me little choice but to vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils.
No, you can vote third party. Stop voting for evil scumbags, or you're part of the problem. We have voters to thank for this mass violation of our fundamental liberties, and The One Party is overjoyed by your cooperation.
Re: (Score:3)
When they have the majority in both the house and the senate starting next Jan. they will expand the NSA's powers and try to ram it through.
IOW, continuing the good work of the current majority and the administration?
Re: (Score:3)
When they have the majority in both the house and the senate starting next Jan. they will expand the NSA's powers and try to ram it through.
IOW, continuing the good work of the current majority and the administration?
Or, just now realizing the power structure of parallel construction, back room deals to harass people for political reasons, massive and invasive domestic eavesdropping abilities etc. are all going to be in the hands of the Republicans when Democrats lose the white house in 2016... and fearing the machine they created being turned against them.
Kill the Bill (Score:2)
Not a solution (Score:2, Informative)
The USA FREEDOM Act only limits spying on American citizens. The spying on the rest of the world is not addressed at all.
Re:Not a solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, it's a spy agency. Spying on the rest of the world is their mission.
Spying on American citizens however........
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The NSA was never supposed to be doing that. They took advantage of technological changes and played semantic games that justified all kinds of shenanigans that was at best barely within the letter of the law, and at worst completely subverted the oversight.
So, a new law was called for. Ideally, it would update the NSA's mission to the age of Internets and cell phones, and put in oversight to at least put an end to the previous excesses (though they'll surely find new ones).
Whether this law actuall
Re: (Score:2)
Would that suddenly justify starting executing random Americans since that is what dictators do?
No, the only think he justify would be dictating. Now, if he instead proclaimed himself to be executor ...
Re: (Score:1)
A concentration camp is not, by default, used for genocide, it is used to concentrating a group of people to a particular area...
A spy agency is used to spy on other people.
Your analogy fails..
Spying on other people is not innately bad. There are bad people out there trying to do bad things, and most other countries have those same types of things.
Re: (Score:1)
Your analogy fails..
What fails is the logic. "A spy agency spies." is not a justification for spying on a particular group. If you're too dumb to come up with a specific justification for a specific situation, then just don't bother. Mass surveillance is what's under discussion, and mass surveillance will catch all sorts of innocent people in the crossfire. It's not targeted in any way, so I can't support it.
Re: (Score:2)
He's saying that the mission of the NSA is not mass surveillance of citizens. Which is true.
Also, it's a spy agency. *Which is true.*
We're not arguing about whether or not they should exist, we're arguing about whether they're working as intended. The poor analogy didn't help either.
Re: (Score:1)
The proper argument to make is to determine who they are supposed to work for. Given what is known so far, they are doing exactly as intended for the people that intended it. And given what happened last Tuesday, all indications are that the voters have no problem with it. You cannot argue with a 95% reelection rate. All this philosophizing about the NSA, etc is only a little more useless now than it was before the election.
For 500 dollars the Jeopardy Answer is:
"Pleasurable intellectual activity that serve
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Nazi concentration camps were very effective at what they were intended to do.
Re: (Score:1)
We're not arguing about whether or not they should exist
Okay, then stop bringing that nonsense into discussions of whether or not mass surveillance should exist, because otherwise it will rightfully be taken as an argument trying to show why it should exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Not talking about it supports the status quo in the same way that not asking for a pony makes me an equine hater.
Saying whether it *should* exist is a judgement call. Saying it's not working *as intended* is a factual observation when they exceed their mandate.
I for one say everything on Slashdot with the intent of starting the same argument with the same people who will never change their minds.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The fact is, if you say, "A spy agency spies. Big surprise!" in a discussion about whether or not mass surveillance is bad, people will rightfully interpret that as an argument for mass surveillance. It's irrelevant. We all know the NSA is full of evil scumbags, and that they spy, so you don't need to tell everyone again.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, the original poster [slashdot.org] says that spying isn't innately bad. You've basically spent the replies since then obtusely saying "I disagree." Fine.
I've specifically pointed out multiple times that I'm not having an argument about whether spying in the first place is wrong. Apparently we're not in the same argument, in which case I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me wrong in a context which I'm not addressing.
Re: (Score:1)
The original poster I was talking about was mostly the grandparent of the poster you just linked to.
Anyway, my actual point is that such a post is at best irrelevant to the actual discussion, and at worst appears to be defending mass surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll point out that said (O)OP is currently at +2 Informative while the reply pointing out their mandate is at +4 Insightful.
cough cough
Re: (Score:1)
That reply is also irrelevant. If they had said that 1 + 1 = 3, and they received +4 informative, that wouldn't change anything. Pointing out that their mission is to do evil is irrelevant at best in a conversation where people are talking about the morality of mass surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, only 1 of the 7 top-level replies can be even remotely labelled as arguing the morality of the NSA. Then a significant portion of the rest is us arguing about whether we're arguing about it.
You're outnumbered, dude. If 86% of the conversation is "irrelevant" I think we should flip that definition on its head and declare the argument you're having with nobody in particular irrelevant.
Anyway, this circle-jerk has been fun but good day.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't care about being outnumbered, as popularity is not relevant to correctness. The morality of mass surveillance is heavily implied in the article itself and in many comments.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Would that suddenly justify starting executing random Americans since that is what dictators do?
It doesn't matter when nobody objects. See, that's the whole thing, there is no negative feedback coming from the people responsible, the voters. So ,who cares what's "justified" or not?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Stop it. Stop using logical fallacies to justify surveillance. "They do it too!" is not a proper justification.
Re: (Score:3)
Which, of course, opens the door to the simplest of international agreements : "I spy on yours, you spy on mine and we can share the results, all legally."
Re: (Score:1)
Which, of course, opens the door to the simplest of international agreements : "I spy on yours, you spy on mine and we can share the results, all legally."
This program is known as Five Eyes [wikipedia.org]
Much more than this!! (Score:3)
The act does not mention the NSA anywhere in the bill [congress.gov]. The only organization that is mentioned is the FBI, which means really business as usual. The FBI restrictions are non-existent with the fact that we have "fusion" centers that all of the other people can dump data into without any restriction.
USA FREEDOM Act - Title I: FISA Business Records Reforms - (Sec. 101) Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to establish a new process to be followed when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) submits an application to a FISA court for an order requiring the production of tangible things (commonly referred to as business records, including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
Emphasis mine. Nowhere does the bill mention that the amount of data is going to be reduced or curtailed. Everything being collected illegally today will still be illegally collected even if this bill passes a
Re: (Score:1)
The bill is a waste of time and provides zero reform.
Who cares? 95% of congress was reelected. I ask again, and again, what incentive is there for them to provide us with this ethereal 'reform'? I am really beginning to wonder if complaining is some kind of sexual stimulant.
Re: (Score:1)
The USA FREEDOM Act only claims to limit spying on American citizens. The spying on the rest of the world is not addressed at all.
Fixed.
Of course, since there is no real oversight to the NSA, and with a long documented history of blatant violation of existing laws with absolutely no consequences other than "please stop doing that, won't you?", having new laws makes no difference.
Don't hold your breath (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more likely to happen now than any other time.
One of the main reasons they don't make an even half-hearted attempt to reign in the intelligence services is that it offers exactly zero upside and huge downside risk: if they do it, it won't really be a big plus to voters, since voters are generally pretty meh on civil liberties and everyone running for office is vaguely "pro-privacy" or some such.
On the other hand, if congress were to, say cut the NSAs budget, and then some terrorist incident occurred af
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. What we need is for the land to be free and brave people making their home here. Sort of like the song. Would be nice.
What we don't need is a bunch of cowards who are so afraid of terrorists (in the US, cows kill more people) that they'll give up freedom. And that's what we've got.
Re: (Score:1)
The identities of their constituency is posted on the open secrets site. And by the looks of things that constituency is extremely pleased, or the funding would simply go elsewhere, towards a smear campaign against their former puppet while trotting out a new one. Oh! Sounds eerily like present day middle east policy
Maybe he thinks libertarians made a difference (Score:2)
It looks like the Republicans will have 54 Senators in 2015, in part, I think, to support given them by libertarians (except perhaps in Virginia where a Libertarian candidate took support from the Republican primarily).
Might this be a move by Democrats to reach out to libertarians who tend to be the strongest opponents of the surveillance of the public by government?
Re: (Score:1)
The Tea Party are not Libertarians. Stop confusing the two. They are "more" Libertarian than regular republicans, but that's not saying much. I thin that, if we could get a Libertarian leaning wing of the democrats to... then we'd really be on to something.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, THAT marriage will last until the first budget bill.
Re: (Score:2)
I thin that, if we could get a Libertarian leaning wing of the democrats to... then we'd really be on to something.
Interesting idea I suppose but progressives are fundamentally statists. I just don't see how that's going to work.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like the Republicans will have 54 Senators in 2015, in part, I think, to support given them by libertarians (except perhaps in Virginia where a Libertarian candidate took support from the Republican primarily).
Might this be a move by Democrats to reach out to libertarians who tend to be the strongest opponents of the surveillance of the public by government?
I wouldn't count on it.
The elected representatives themselves aren't Libertarian, they're Republican. Doesn't matter if the voters leaned Libertarian or not. The Party isn't interested in Libertarian ideals excepting the ones that they find convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA FREEDOM Act is just the Patriot Act done over to escape judicial review. Block the bill and the unconstitutional Patriot Act provisions can finally be left to expire.
This new push is driven by the need to renew the expiring Patriot Act provisions that enable the NSA and others to claim that the wholesale spying on the American people is somehow legal and constitutional. They hope by adding some meaningless restraints and preventing future Snowden type leaks that they can stall efforts in the court
I hope it... (Score:3)
Repeals the Patriot Act and shuts down Homeland Security. How many redundant players do we need to keep us safe?
Re:I hope it... (Score:5, Insightful)
How many redundant players do we need to keep us safe?
I'd suggest starting by questioning the base. Which, if any, is actually contributing significantly* to keeping someone safe?
And then I'd suggest to compare that significance to the investment in money and in degradation of privacy among other rights.
i.e.: If every life saved by HS costs some millions of dollars, it's way more efficient to spend that money in idiot-proofing vending machines and, as an added bonus, the country gets to keep being free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with that analysis is that it makes it seem as if any of these rights violations would be okay if only they worked well. They wouldn't be. Fundamental freedoms and the government following the constitution are simply more important than safety.
Re:I hope it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Repeals the Patriot Act and shuts down Homeland Security. How many redundant players do we need to keep us safe?
As many as it takes to give tons of money to all the little cogs in the militaro-industrial complex.
Seriously, the USA were already spending more than everyone else in the world on its military (and its security apparatus, including the NSA), before 9/11.
Was this able to prevent the WTC/Pentagon attacks? No. And not just that, but Osama bin Laden was able to hide practically in plain sight for years, communicating all the time with his organization through written and recorded messages (meaning: outside the reach of the NSA).
Will the NSA be able to prevent the next 9/11? Let me go out on a limb and say "No" again. If the hard-core terrorists haven't got it by now, every single telecommunication in the world is being spied upon. The safest way is to organize the next attack by courier and letters, and not through electronic communications at all.
The Iraq war was all about oil, Halliburton and Exxon bottom line. Today's enless wars, conflicts and spying is all about keeping the money machine going strong, and the US Government doling mountains of cash to contractors and sub-contractors.
The whole thing will end very badly.
extends the Patriot Act (Score:2)
Repeals the Patriot Act
Nope the USA FREEDOM Act extends the Patriot Act and destroys Liberty.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not once did a political ad obviously endorse curtailing the government's sweeping surveillance powers.
Candidates from elections are prone to endorse whatever view the polls say their constituents are interested in. I'd say this is a poor harbinger of curtailing the powers of the surveillance state.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because both parties want that sweeping power for when *they're* in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because both parties want that sweeping power for when *they're* in charge.
Almost certainly. Which begs the question, "How much difference is there, really, between the choices available on election day?"
In retrospect, that security theatre works its magic at airports should in no way surprise us since we've been indulging in political theatre for some time now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Candidates from elections are prone to endorse whatever view the polls say their constituents are interested in.
This recent election provided a great counterexample in the minimum wage increases that passed in 4 red states. There were no Republicans taking up this popular policy position.
Re: (Score:3)
I would not vote for (support a candidate that is for) a federal minimum wage increase at this time because I want to see how it plays out in the various localities.
well, so far it's been uniformly positive
If it appears that the experiments have worked to my satisfaction, then I would definitely vote that direction.
Perfect is the enemy of good
(+100%??)
The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in over two decades. Yes, +100%. That's how useless the minimum wage is in this country, it is half of what you need to live beyond abject poverty. And there's just no reason why anyone should be permitted to pay less than a living wage. If you can't pay that much, you don't have a viable business idea.
Re: (Score:2)
So we shouldn't have any paper routes, fast food restaurants, or other jobs traditionally filled by students etc.?
You are confusing part-time jobs with jobs which do not pay a living wage.
Re: (Score:3)
If they employ someone full time, then yes, that person is damn well entitled to a wage that can sustain basic living, regardless of what else they do with the rest of their time (study, work on another work etc). That was the point of having minimum wage when it was originally introduced. That it was devalued over time because it wasn't indexed to inflation is a travesty, and effectively subverts the law without explicitly repealing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Get the votes now, ask for forgiveness later.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite frankly, government surveillance isn't this Orwellian nightmare(not yet; and I support moves to curtail this) the hacker crowd thinks it is.
Quite frankly, we have serious problems with the environment, economy, human and civil rights, labor, etc. that the actual day to day impact of PRISM just isn't a big deal to most people. If it were, Facebook would be a ghost town and everyone would be afraid to use the Internet.
As I said above, this is just isn't a problem yet. People aren't being jailed for asso
Re: (Score:1)
Quite frankly, we have serious problems with the environment, economy, human and civil rights, labor, etc. that the actual day to day impact of PRISM just isn't a big deal to most people.
That's because people are short-sighted fools who don't care about or oppose the fundamental liberties they claim to want to protect. The whole "land of the free and the home of the brave" thing is just a joke.
As I said above, this is just isn't a problem yet.
The constitution and your privacy being violated are problems in and of themselves.
People aren't being jailed for associating with known dissidents. No one's curb stomping the press for associating with undesirables.
That we know of. The whole surveillance thing is secret, and the leaks have already revealed some abuses. They could be sharing information and selectively targeting people.
But let's be honest here. What's more important and relatable, tax reform or NSA reform?
The latter, obviously. Anyone who thinks other
Re: (Score:2)
As I said above, this is just isn't a problem yet. People aren't being jailed for associating with known dissidents.
Wasn't this exactly what the Red Scare was?
Somehow saying "we aren't fucked YET" doesn't give me much comfort. Waiting until the point where we're ALREADY fucked and THEN worrying about it is useless.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying exactly "we're not fucked YET" I'm saying, "We're fucked for a lot of other reasons and it's no shock that this isn't on the radar."
If you think this is the biggest problem we face, you are extremely privileged.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah okay, fair enough. Just didn't want it to get into fallacy of relative privation territory.
Time for another dog and pony show, huh? (Score:3)
Put on a good show for the idiots to pretend like you're doing something, you Corporate-owned assclowns.
Laws? (Score:1)
Do people think the NSA gives a rat's ass about any laws?
The illusion (Score:1)
I have not doubt that the nefarious and illegal activities of the NSA will continue, regardless of the outcome of this 'reform'.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The new Senate has more loyal Americans.
Ah, I remember back when I was an idiot child and believed that "American loyalty" could justify the Republican platform.
Because let's keep voting for the guys who keep giving tax cuts to their rich asshole buddies, and funnelling half the economy into military spending, and then whine about how the budget isn't balanced.
P.S: Or were you being sarcastic
um no (Score:2)
Given that the NSA already violates federal law and the constitution daily, I don't think this will do much. It's already being reported that the NSA is holding patents on some of their work and selling them to industry, so they're already poking holes in the only true power congress has over them... their budget. The only person that has any control over them at all is the president, and we've had two in a row now that seem to think an Orwellian state is a great idea, so I'm not hopeful.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats never wanted to reduce the security state, I'm not sure they ever even promised to do this. The security state is unpopular in a very general way but the status quo represents a very broad, resilient, bipartisan consensus. Everybody is willing to mouth platitudes about privacy and the Constitution, but nobody wants any concrete decisions hung around their neck, least of all the electorate.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the fuck where they when the Dems controlled the entire government?
You mean when the Republicans controlled the House and shot down everything with a whiff of liberal about it?
Breaking out the popcorn (Score:2)
Well, well we want to get some work done now... (Score:3)
The Democrat-controlled senate hasn't scheduled any votes for some time now, and even other Democrats have been complaining that senate Dems aren't doing anything, for fear of votes coming back to haunt them in the elections. If it's good policy, why do you have to fear your how your electorate will respond at the polls?
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills
Now all of a sudden it's time to get something done? That's what happens when you play politics with public policy. Now we know you were too busy looking out for your own hide and not serving the public. And check out Landrieu all of a sudden being a "driving force" in passing Keystone pipeline in the face of a tight runoff election. This would be hilarious if it wasn't such a sad reflection of the state of the US.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More on Reid's shenanigans.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a bit like a digital or legal Berlin Wall. Once the US mil and gov put that parallel construction into the public court system all legal teams and the press will know.
What are the options for the USA? Sealed security courts for all? People and lawyers at a federal and state level will begin to notice that change.
The other option is to make the domestic
Gotta love his timing (Score:1)
2) Introduce legislation he KNOWS will go nowhere
3) When legislation fails, start the finger pointing game
And folks wonder why fewer and fewer people vote anymore. Same bullshit, slightly different flavor of it is all.
One can hope, the Repub party will pull their head out of their ass and actually get some meaningful legislation done.
They need to impress the hell out of those who still vote if they want any shot at the White House in 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah. It's the legislative equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his lollipop.
Both parties would be served to remember that Congress is the peoples' House of REPRESENTATIVES and the Senate controlled by the STATES. The Democrats backed themselves into this hole. Let's see if the Republicans can do any better.
Re: (Score:2)
Those of you who post anonymously here (Score:2)
should know: the NSA still knows who you are........
(I like the sound of shivering from the paranoid in the morning.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it's not so clear and simple. The 4th amendment protects against government invasion of your person and your residence: here were talking about snooping information that you're transmitting on the publicly-regulated airwaves or over publicly-managed wires and cables. If you open your window and shout a conversation about your sexual exploits to your neighbor, you shouldn't expect any privacy. You volunteered to put it out there in a form that is easy to snoop upon; the fact that you think you have ul
Re: (Score:2)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Even in 1700s, this wording protects your papers if you're carrying them horse and buggy over public roads on public property. Original intent is the key here, not translate it
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but it's always been OK for a police officer to look around and note things down. Mass surveillance is just doing that on a very large scale. The NSA does things analogous to noting that you're traveling with a briefcase on a horse and buggy and looking at the outside of the envelope when you mail something. It's bad, but it's a very large number of individually acceptable actions, and therefore not clearly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
It's analogous to how personal information is treated
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see: under the 4th amendment we all have a right against invasions of any of our "persons, houses, papers, and effects"...
Are wireless transmissions "persons"? Obviously not.
Are wireless transmissions "houses"? Well, as those transmissions are floating about freely on the airwaves, that can't be.
Are wireless transmissions "papers"? You might be tempted to say that a radio transmission is an analogue of a paper in that both contain personal information. But the meaning of papers in 1789 was the contain
7 out of 12 eggs (Score:1)
How would everyone feel if every carton of a dozen eggs at the grocery store only contained 7 eggs? And the grocery store manager said that the farmer was not paying the store, so it was OK to not provide all 12 eggs as written on the carton?
Now, I am the customer of my ISP. They advertize speed tiers, and I choose to pay for one of them. I am paying for that speed grade to access the internet at large. This is an INTERNET Service Provider, after all, not an INSERT_BRANDNAME_HERE Service Provider.
I expect t
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry all, I thought I was in a different window for a different article... :(