US Senate To Vote on a Wiretap Bill That Critics Call 'Stasi-Like' (wired.com) 55
The United States Senate is poised to vote on legislation this week that, for the next two years at least, could dramatically expand the number of businesses that the US government can force to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. From a report: Some of the nation's top legal experts on a controversial US spy program argue that the legislation, known as the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), would enhance the US government's spy powers, forcing a variety of new businesses to secretly eavesdrop on Americans' overseas calls, texts, and email messages. Those experts include a handful of attorneys who've had the rare opportunity to appear before the US government's secret surveillance court.
The Section 702 program, authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was established more than a decade ago to legalize the government's practice of forcing major telecommunications companies to eavesdrop on overseas calls in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. On the one hand, the government claims that the program is designed to exclusively target foreign citizens who are physically located abroad; on the other, the government has fiercely defended its ability to access wiretaps of Americans' emails and phone conversations, often years after the fact and in cases unrelated to the reasons the wiretaps were ordered in the first place.
The 702 program works by compelling the cooperation of US businesses defined by the government as "electronic communications service providers" -- traditionally phone and email providers such as AT&T and Google. Members of the House Intelligence Committee, whose leaders today largely serve as lobbyists for the US intelligence community in Congress, have been working to expand the definition of that term, enabling the government to force new categories of businesses to eavesdrop on the government's behalf.
The Section 702 program, authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was established more than a decade ago to legalize the government's practice of forcing major telecommunications companies to eavesdrop on overseas calls in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. On the one hand, the government claims that the program is designed to exclusively target foreign citizens who are physically located abroad; on the other, the government has fiercely defended its ability to access wiretaps of Americans' emails and phone conversations, often years after the fact and in cases unrelated to the reasons the wiretaps were ordered in the first place.
The 702 program works by compelling the cooperation of US businesses defined by the government as "electronic communications service providers" -- traditionally phone and email providers such as AT&T and Google. Members of the House Intelligence Committee, whose leaders today largely serve as lobbyists for the US intelligence community in Congress, have been working to expand the definition of that term, enabling the government to force new categories of businesses to eavesdrop on the government's behalf.
I was impressed and surprised (Score:3)
When I heard the first 702 reauthorization vote failed.
Now that they are trying again and want to make reauthorization even worse is more in line with my expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head a
Re: (Score:2)
US to China: Nobody gets away with turning all their megacorporations into arms of a giant state surveillance apparatus - except us!
How to make it work? (Score:4, Insightful)
They abused the last one, it had some benefits which we are not allowed to know just how useful it was. But if you need to spy on a foreigner, or even an American with warrant (which is constitutional; from the founders) the capacity to be able to do that due to the nature of the technology opens the door to abuse.
Even with FISA, it was possible to lock out lawful entry without creating your own stuff from scratch. Over time, people have created better protections that are more accessible so it's natural to expect push back from the government that is increasingly finding it more difficult to do it's lawful duties... and miss the unlawful abuses.
As often in the case, it's easier to keep the old FISA than it is to reform it because especially today in this failing democracy, reform is usually a bad thing. When Trump gets in again he'll "reform" Obamacare and "reform" Social Security as he did the postal service... it'll get so much worse and people are so slow that when they realize "reform" == "corrupt" they'll blame the next guy.
Re: (Score:3)
If Trump gets in again, there won't be a "next guy."
Actually, if Biden gets in again, there may not be a "next guy" either but for a different reason.
I honestly hope to be proven wrong but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if Biden gets in again, there may not be a "next guy" either but for a different reason.
I'm really curious about what this might be. Sure, there would almost certainly be a "next girl" but there could be subsequent "next guys" after that...
Re: (Score:2)
There's always a next guy, or girl. The name of the country might change though, and it might be a looong period before the next guy. But as long as humans are around...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump made history by being the oldest president the US has elected, if he wins a second term he'll update that record. He could very well declare himself dictator for life, without violating the two term limit.
Re: (Score:2)
As often in the case, it's easier to keep the old FISA than it is to reform it because especially today in this failing democracy, reform is usually a bad thing.
This surveillance is one of the reasons this democracy is failing. It enables corruption at the highest levels. Winners and losers in the market are winners and losers because of knowledge gained from surveillance, not from their actual value. That corrupts Capitalism at its core.
Winners and losers should be decided by Reality, not humans. Humans are weak, fallible, and dumb. Reality is... well, real. It is infallible.
(this CAPTCHA is hilarious! economy)
Re: (Score:2)
Today you can hire private contractors to get you plenty of info without any need for government abuse.
FISA isn't that problem. Few get into office and effectively try to fix the problem because they likely end up "changing their mind" or ruined because it's the NSA, CIA and previously the FBI use their powers which go beyond simple wire tapping. They can get one of our 5 eyes partners to legally do what they can not do...
Humans (and students) will work very hard to cheat sometimes even work harder at the c
Stasi-like? (Score:1, Insightful)
With Republican's infatuation with what people do in their personal lives, this shouldn't surprise anyone. It's essentially next level McCarthyism.
Re: (Score:2)
With Republican's infatuation with what people do in their personal lives, this shouldn't surprise anyone.
Unless it's Trump, then they don't care what he does -- either in his personal or public life.
It's essentially next level McCarthyism.
Indeed.
Re: (Score:1)
The Orange Messiah is allowed to walk on water or whore piss; Messiah's need freedom to work in mysterious ways.
Jar Jar, Scooby Doo, and the 3 Stooges often solved problems via chaos and serendipity. Laugh at them all you want, but they're doing God's Holy Work!
Re: (Score:1)
There weren't nearly as many of them as McCarthy claimed there were. Being socialist or socialist leaning does not make someone a spy, traitor, or infiltrator.
Re:Stasi-like? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
One party is overly concerned with what two adults do in their bedrooms, who might have a penis under their clothing, what women do with their bodies, and consumption of cannabis.
I pointed this out elsewhere (Score:4, Informative)
That's why it passed, the House Speaker went around them, in the process making the members who blocked it look bad instead of him and pissing them off further.
The entire Republican party is a mess right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The real issue is Corruption. Any time you see both Republicans and Democrats coming together on something, such as this, if you dig around enough, you'll find some industry that's going to rake in a ton of money because of it. Pay attention to the few who dissent, though. Some subset of them aren't yet corrupt, and they're trying to fix things.
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue is Corruption. Any time you see both Republicans and Democrats coming together on something, such as this, if you dig around enough, you'll find some industry that's going to rake in a ton of money because of it.
Absolutely! They'd also hate to lose out on all that sweet sweet campaign money distributed by their current cult leaders. Also, threats like "you're going to vote for this bill or we'll get a primary challenger to take you out next election". Crush campaign funding and watch the roaches abandon DC in droves. Unfortunately, they'd have to be the ones to reform campaign finance.
Amendments (Score:5, Informative)
Republican Andy Biggs, from Arizona, filed an amendment to the bill to prevent any use of wiretapping that involves American citizens without a proper warrant. Most Republicans voted for it, most Democrats voted against it, and it failed.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/... [house.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Google just hands stuff over without warrants already. The companies choose to violate their customers at their whim already and do more harm privately than their voluntary help to government. Some companies like Apple resist, but it's only 1 CEO away from changing; all of them are. This law just like the last one adds a rubber stamp to the process for when the company resists the voluntary request. It's not that much of a change functionally.
When somebody with a decent lawyer fights it, that is when you
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense, Republicans are highly offended if anyone looks into the personal lives of their Dear Leader.
And the Senate is majority Democrat, they're needed to pass any bill, though generally both parties cheerfully help each other out on these bills. They only pass because the voters are scared of terrorists hiding in their midst. Fear is how you get rid of freedoms.
The rule is very simple, and it's being violated: Get a damn warrant first. The quandary is the FISA - they grant warrants, but they're secr
Republicans? Pay more attention (Score:2)
It was conservative Republicans that initially killed it [axios.com] in the House, and it eventually only cleared the House because the Speaker put together a bizarre coalition of Democrats and so-called RINO Republicans (the Anti-Trump left edge of the GOP) to get the majority needed to pass it in the House. Bizarre because Speakers normally do not turn to the other party to get the votes their own party will not provide. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would NEVER have passed a bill through the House that the majo
You only have to worry (Score:4, Insightful)
only if you have unapproved thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
only if you have unapproved thoughts.
I have unapproved thoughts. As much as 40% of my thoughts are considered vile, anti-community, anti-human, disgusting, inappropriate, untrustworthy, etc.
The entire reason such standards are set is because it is easier to control someone who is "guilty" and we are ALL guilty. Whether or not it is .0002% or 99% is irrelevant. You are instantly placed on the defensive because nobody currently alive is pure.
It is a shame that you started your message on the subject line as I wanted to make sure it was part of t
Weren't Democrats opposed to the PATRIOT Act? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Weren't Democrats opposed to the PATRIOT Act? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> the 1 senator who voted against it was assassinated
Russ Feingold? he's still alive.
The GOP didn't actually oppose it (Score:2, Informative)
The House Speaker allowed their impeachment inquiry against Biden to die off for lack of evidence (their main witness was revealed to be more or less a Russian plant [usatoday.com]) and they're pretty pissed about that, so they wanted to remove the Speaker (again) but they don't have the votes.
So they blo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Where is Joe Biden to say he will veto this RISAA Act even if it passed?
Oh my lord. Don't you understand? He does not have the political capital to resist this at this time. He needs to conserve that capital for a different upcoming battle. Next time though, he will absolutely make a principled stand against the administration that he is leading.
Full disclosure. (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine if every senator and representative got a quarterly summary of every time someone in law enforcement viewed information about them without a warrant. What's more likely, that they would scale back these programs or insist that they were excluded from them?
The real problem with these programs is that they're not applied fairly. Either everyone deserves the same privacy or no one deserves any.
Re: (Score:1)
That number should be zero (Score:2)
expand the number of businesses that the US government can force to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant.
That number should be zero. If there are currently a negative number of business the US government can force to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant, then maybe expand the list to zero.
Our senate moves at a snail's pace. (Score:2)
Our senate moves at a snail's pace at literally EVERYTHING. Most of the time, they make a lot more noise about who might be touching whose nether regions or, heaven forbid, someone may have made a statement they disagreed with about something, but rarely, if ever, do they come together to get shit done.
That said, when it comes to trampling the fuck out of people's rights and privacy? They come together like the prayer circle and gradma's church on a Sunday afternoon when there's free cupcakes to be had.
How
Re: (Score:2)
The beginning of the end was Reaganomics: His "government is the problem" policies meant government stopped being a watch-dog and stopped making corporations accountable. That ensured the rise of winner-takes-all capitalism. The US system of 'government owns nothing' (except schools and bombs) meant the government didn't have a choice: Mega-corporations could commit any dishonesty and any crime because the US government couldn't replace them with another mega-corporation. Add to that, the Reaganomics-e
Re: (Score:2)
The beginning of the end was Reaganomics: His "government is the problem" policies meant government stopped being a watch-dog and stopped making corporations accountable. That ensured the rise of winner-takes-all capitalism. The US system of 'government owns nothing' (except schools and bombs) meant the government didn't have a choice: Mega-corporations could commit any dishonesty and any crime because the US government couldn't replace them with another mega-corporation. Add to that, the Reaganomics-era loop-hole of bribing politicians and corporations allowing to provide those bribes, US politics became a self-perpetuating feudal system, beholden to corporations. There was a counter-culture to this, started by the Republican party but it was quickly overwhelmed by religious wing-nuts and equally fascist "state's rights" activists. This populism meant the Democrat party had to shift right to maintain power, allowing fascism to rule its own policies and politicians.
Until corporate speech and corporate dollars are removed from US politics, nothing will change.
At the moment, the 'world owes me' policies are driven by Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, who agrees with some Democrat policies but mostly, is another fascist/theocratic wing-nut, threatening Republican officials who disobey her.
Having lived through Reaganomics, and the aftermath, that man and his staff have a LOT to answer for. They literally sold the American dream to the would-be oligarchs, and made them defacto oligarchs, and now we're heading into a place where it's almost just a matter of time before some mega-corp will be able to buy the US government outright. I mean, why not. It's pretty much what's happening already.
9/11 terrorists are winning (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2001 the terrorists probably couldn't imagine how far-reaching their actions would be. Twenty-three years later, the US response to those attacks is still ongoing, and citizens have less and less freedom from government spying every year. The US is doing exactly what the terrorists wanted, which was to turn the States into the kind of shithole they themselves grew up in.
Good job American leaders - keep you country safe by having your nose up the ass of every one of your constituents. What a great way to live up to the spirit and principles upon which your country was founded.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Although I think Bin Laden had some idea that this would happen and was aiming for it. The smartest way to destroy an enemy is to trigger their self-destruction. And the US, as a whole, has fallen for that approach hook, line and sinker. Remember that the 9/11 terrorists were primarily opposed to the freedoms US citizens used to have and wanted to do away with them. They have been successful and continue to be successful.
Re: (Score:2)
In 2001 the terrorists probably couldn't imagine how far-reaching their actions would be.
LOL. They explicitly DID know. What are you on about? Bin laden perfectly predicted the PATRIOT Act. His explicit goal was to turn living in America into a surveillance state hellhole. Congress heard his manifesto and decided to fully implement it. Everything is working EXACTLY as planned.
The idiocy to think that the terrorists couldn't imagine... oh my. They not only imagined, they wrote about it and "we" are following their playbook slavishly. I do not think you understand exactly how fucked we are. Bin L
Not winning, won. (Score:2)
They won when we invaded two countries that had nothing to do with the attack and spent trillions occupying the land instead of on our citizens well being.
Everything else is just gravy.
Re: (Score:1)
It shouldn't matter (Score:2)
The law is not supposed to trump the Constitution and the Constitution requires a warrant.
At this point, what good is having a Constitution if easily corruptible men can override it.
Sept 11, 2001 opened pandoras box! (Score:2)
politicians on both sides (Score:2)
More agencies and employees and authority = more money and more power.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle benefitted. Republicans lumped a bunch of security agencies together under a new umberella org they called "The Department of Homeland Security" (which always reminds me of the Babylon5 thing where many species refers to their planets as "homeworld" instead of various names). The GOP initially thought of this as a combo of streamlining government and, of course, new security contracts for private ven
Wiretaps without warrant? There is no excuse. (Score:2)
This is a state that wants to oppress, analyze and tightly control its citizens. Warrants are there for a _reason_ and that reason is governments sliding into totalitarianism and fascism without limits to their power. Of course, there need to be additional controls, warrants can be abused as well and criminal judges have been a factor throughout time. But do away with all the little safeguards put into place and eventually everything goes to hell.
Ah, Autocracy (Score:1)
Trumpland, Trumpland it's the best
It's better than all the rest
When you see the giant chocolate cake
Your heart will simply break
Trumpland, Trumpland it's the best
It's better than all the rest