Congress Voting On Amendment to Defund NSA Domestic Spying Tomorrow

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congress Voting On Amendment to Defund NSA Domestic Spying Tomorrow

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @08:27AM from the busy-signal dept.

New submitter Jah-Wren Ryel writes "It's been just over a month since the NSA's dragnet surveillance program was leaked to the public. Tomorrow, Congress is voting on an amendment that would block funding for NSA programs that collect the call records of innocent Americans. A win tomorrow may start a chain reaction — but it won't happen unless we speak up. We have one day to convince Congress to act." The EFF is urging U.S. citizens to call their representatives, noting that there is no time for email to be effective (find your representative). You can read the amendment on the EFF site, quoting the EFF: "Reps. Justin Amash, John Conyers, Jr., Thomas Massie, Mick Mulvaney, and Jared Polis are proposing an amendment that would curtail funding for the implementation of orders under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act unless the order is explicitly limited in scope. ... Even as the Amash/Conyers Amendment is gaining momentum, some are rallying around a decoy amendment that would do nothing to rein in domestic surveillance. That amendment, championed by Rep. Nugent, would not alter in any way the government's use of Section 215 to obtain bulk communications records on millions of Americans. EFF is urging Representatives to oppose the Nugent Amendment."

276 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I would, but... by cphilo · 2013-07-23 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

I live in Kansas, so if I called my Congressman, it would be totally ineffective. I have tried before and gotten the form letter which says, basically, "If you have an opinion that disagrees with mine, Suck It." Sincerely Your Congressman
1. Re:I would, but... by whoever57 · 2013-07-23 08:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I live in Kansas, so if I called my Congressman, it would be totally ineffective. I have tried before and gotten the form letter which says, basically, "If you have an opinion that disagrees with mine, Suck It." Sincerely Your Congressman
  You should still call. Express your disapproval if necessary. Silence will be interpreted as agreement.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
2. Re:I would, but... by trum4n · 2013-07-23 08:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Disapproval will be interpreted as treason.
3. Re:I would, but... by TWiTfan · 2013-07-23 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's the standard form letter that you get in ANY state (except for maybe 2 or 3 swing states, where the outcome of any election isn't already predetermined).
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
4. Re:I would, but... by cold+fjord · 2013-07-23 08:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Disapproval will be interpreted as disapproval. It may be short sighted, ill considered, but still just disapproval.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
5. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Now you at least know how non-us-citizens feel when they talk to you guys, basically, "who cares if the NSA taps the whole world, as long as they don't tap us-citizens, suck it"...
6. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  And fuck you all for agreeing that spying on your allies is a given. Fuck. You. All.
7. Re:I would, but... by postbigbang · 2013-07-23 09:10 · Score: 2
  
  Consider that if you call, the NSA will know you called. One more metadata tag in some disk drive in Utah.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
8. Re:I would, but... by pixelpusher220 · 2013-07-23 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  So call from work from a conference room, no need to tie the record to yourself directly. Though I admit, I'm local so it's obviously not long distance for me.
  
  That said, shouldn't we mandate Congress have 800 numbers?
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
9. Re:I would, but... by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-23 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650
  You should read it.
  No, really.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
10. Re:I would, but... by postbigbang · 2013-07-23 09:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Most orgs that have 800#s have ANI. Look it up-- like caller-id but more choice.
  Your cellphone put you in the conference room. You can be tracked easily to very confined geometry.
  So it was you. You don't even have to confess, we hacked the VoIP PBX long ago.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
11. Re:I would, but... by interkin3tic · 2013-07-23 09:27 · Score: 2
  
  So do it anyway. Why do you assume it's totally ineffective? A form letter of any kind doesn't mean anything. They count the number of people who contact them about an issue: it's a good indication of whether it could hurt their chances of getting re-elected.
  
  Also, as far as senators go, Moran didn't go raving about terrorists and security. That statement sounds like as of the 4th of july, he hadn't decided which way his voters were leaning.
  
  Your other senator, Pat Roberts, doesn't appear to have made any comments on the NSA or Snowden recently, though I didn't dig too deep. He did defend the program under Bush, but no one is going to call him out on it if he flip flops on it.
  
  Anyway, if enough people call, any representative interested in staying in office (all of them) will at least not vote to preserve the NSA. It's a long shot, but it's slightly longer if you decide you'd rather spend the 5 minutes it would take to call picking your nose instead.
12. Re:I would, but... by interkin3tic · 2013-07-23 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Ah... and now I realize it's not the senate. Well fuck it. Call them anyway.
13. Re:I would, but... by pixelpusher220 · 2013-07-23 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Last year I would have said you're tinfoil hat material.
  
  However, I said 'directly', which isn't claiming they can't figure it out, just that it isn't straightforward from the meta-data.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
14. Re:I would, but... by RenderSeven · 2013-07-23 09:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That would be AWESOME! If the NSA was discovered to be monitoring incoming calls to a Congressman's office the monitoring program would be over. Congress only wants them monitoring the masses, not themselves.
15. Re:I would, but... by RenderSeven · 2013-07-23 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, we have allies?!
16. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  If you're that concerned about the consequences of this one call, turn off your cell phone.
17. Re:I would, but... by tomkost · 2013-07-23 09:50 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This is the same response that most people get when contacting their congressmen. On top of that, mine is Michael McCall, and he is the Chairman of the Dept Homeland Security committee, so he's REALLY on the side of NSA spying. His people literally laughed at me when I called to voice objection to the Cyber Security Bill.
18. Re:I would, but... by Simulant · 2013-07-23 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  My congressman and I are pretty much in agreement on everything. Can I call your congressman?
19. Re:I would, but... by tippe · 2013-07-23 09:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There's no guarantee that contacting your congressman will make any difference in all of this, but doing nothing diminishes your chances of affecting any kind of change to nil. Guaranteed that there is a significant part of your population that is going to be spending their evening comatose in front of the TV or watching Youtube, oblivious to or uncaring of this NSA scandal brewing around them. It's a foregone conclusion that they won't be calling their congressman. As someone aware of what is going on, who is not hopelessly entranced by "So you think you can dance" or some other such crap, and who has the power and capacity to maybe do something about it (you have a phone, don't you?), don't you think you have a duty to act on behalf of your country?
  As a Canadian, I can't do much about this particular initiative, but I have on a small number of occasions participated in blocking certain bills that I felt strongly against (new Canadian copyright reform bills), and I did this simply by contacting my MP and various ministers. Did my individual acts, when considered on their own, make a difference? Hell no. But when considered together with similar acts by thousands of other Canadians, it had a very strong impact, and was enough to stop a couple of unfavourable bills in their tracks (at least for a while). If copyright reform can elicit that kind of effort from me, why doesn't the loss and corruption of one of your fundamental "rights" elicit the same kind of effort in you? What is it going to take?
20. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, yes, the USA is our friend. Our politicians keep telling us. But we know better. It's not just your administration either. You, the people, are not our friends. You want your government to spy on us, to tilt the table in your favor.
21. Re:I would, but... by postbigbang · 2013-07-23 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  This is what hadoop is for.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
22. Re:I would, but... by Ambassador+Kosh · 2013-07-23 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  I think we have minions. :)
  
  --
  Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
23. Re:I would, but... by cphilo · 2013-07-23 10:05 · Score: 2
  
  All right, gang. I called Kevin Yoder, for what it is worth. FOR the Amash, Coyers amendment. AGAINST the Nugent amendment The intern taking the call said that he personally agreed with my stance, so maybe there is a .0001% chance of it making a difference. Then again, he may have been told to say that to everyone. Off to a Google Glass meeting.
24. Re:I would, but... by Type44Q · 2013-07-23 10:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Last year I would have said you're tinfoil hat material.
  Fifteen years ago, you (and 95% of my fellow techies) would've said I was tinfoil hat material. (I may be a visionary but I'm fucking tired of being right.)
25. Re:I would, but... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-07-23 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  They only care that 51% of the people either approve or don't care enough to disapprove.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
26. Re:I would, but... by SeaFox · 2013-07-23 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  You think being in the State of Kansas makes you ineffective in government, try being a voter in Lawrence. Might as well not vote for anything outside the city elections.
27. Re:I would, but... by SeaFox · 2013-07-23 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Disapproval will be interpreted as treason.
  Since the representative is supposed to represent the views of his constituency, technically the congressman disagreeing with you should be considered treason.
28. Re:I would, but... by NFN_NLN · 2013-07-23 10:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Fifteen years ago, you (and 95% of my fellow techies) would've said I was tinfoil hat material. (I may be a visionary but I'm fucking tired of being right.)
  There isn't much point fighting the natural cycle. Government gains too much power, becomes oppressive... people revolt... form new government... repeat.
  I thought you could break the cycle but people literally have an animal instinct to be told what to do. When I was younger I thought people were naive, but even as I got older I heard educated adults say: "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to hide". Actual educated adults that should know better.
  I was born and lived during a time of freedom so I can be thankful for being at the right part of the cycle AND that is all. If young people don't pick up the fight that is literally their loss. In fact, I'm of the opinion now that we may as well accelerate the process. Let's just take away people freedom so people finally get the point. We can try to hold on to dwindling freedom or we can aim for a revolution and a new start.
29. Re:I would, but... by mattmarlowe · 2013-07-23 10:35 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Bah, things could be worse.....consider being a republican in the northern portion of San Diego:
  City Council Rep is a democrat --pretty much votes opposite of what I would
  City Mayor is a corrupt democrat -- he's bringing city business to a halt and making San Diego a laughing stalk nationwide
  State Legislature is entirely controlled by democrats and veto proof majority -- destroying the economy of the state
  State Governor is democrat and a great liar saying he has balanced the state budget while just pushing the expenses into future years, raising taxes, or making county governments take over state responsibilities.
  Congressional Representative is a democrat - says the right thing, but always votes opposite of what I would
  State Senators (both) are democrats -- By my standards, I consider both of them crazy
  National President is a hardcore democrat
  There isn't anyone in power from my local city to state to congress to president that in anyway represents my beliefs...And, I get to pay high taxes for this representation...
30. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  I highly doubt he is his congressman's only constituent.
31. Re:I would, but... by squiggleslash · 2013-07-23 10:51 · Score: 2
  
  The interests of his constituency, not the views. The views would be near damned impossible. How do you get 43.5% of a politician to vote for a ban on abortion, and 46.1% against, with 10.4% abstaining?
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
32. Re:I would, but... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-07-23 11:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Now you at least know how non-us-citizens feel when they talk to you guys, basically, "who cares if the NSA taps the whole world, as long as they don't tap us-citizens, suck it"...
  Since the NSA is in the spying business (signals analysis and such, not sneaking around spying), the fact that they spy is of no interest to me at all. It's their job.
  That said, we have this Constitution thing for a reason, and the NSA violating the Constitution IS if interest to me.
  In other words, the NSA spying on foreigners is their job. The NSA spying on ME needs a warrant and/or court order, which they don't have (don't get me started on Secret Courts..).
  If you're a foreigner being spied on by the NSA, take it up with your own government. If YOUR government won't protect you from OUR government, consider getting a new government.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
33. Re: I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  "Not spying on Americans[tm]"? Uhm. Did you lot forget that the USoA proclaimed itself the guardian of teh free intarwebz? And also that more than a little international traffic passes in, then right out the USoA again, in both directions? If you want to be trustable as a global guardian, you can't treat this few people different from all the rest, you have to stand up equally for each and every one of them. So if you don't want wholesale warrantless tapping of bloody everything, you have to stop it for everyone, not just for you. If you don't get that, you're not fit to stay guardian of teh intarwebz. To the point that I can't tell which would be worse, putting the oversight with the VN, with censorship-pushing Russia and wholesale censoring China (and a fsckton of dodgy other countries, like the UK) both on its security council, or you. So yeah, call your representatives. And tell'em to shut the whole thing down, not just stop it for the happy few. You owe it to the image of that great and idealistic country you like to try and convince the world of, if not so much to your loudly speaking deeds so far.
34. Re:I would, but... by chihowa · 2013-07-23 11:42 · Score: 2
  
  They would just write an amendment to it that exempts them from being monitored. Just like the Do Not Call lists, Social Security, laws against insider trading, etc, etc...
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
35. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  But is it web-scale?
36. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
  The general apathy towards freedom by the support for the expansion of government, and by the argument of "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide." is not something we can afford to harbor.
37. Re:I would, but... by rmdingler · 2013-07-23 12:56 · Score: 2
  
  I remember a meeting between an American lad and a Soviet napeHb during Krushchev's stint as Premier... even then it occurred to me how much distrust had been indoctrinated into my callow mind. Your fearless leaders are of the same stock as mine, and the bulk of them are sociopaths because that is the surest way to get ahead, footloose and conscience-free. You and your Countrymen are bridled with the same ingrained & misguided tribal loyalties as me and mine, but at heart we are mostly unlike both our leaders and our stereotypes.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
38. Re:I would, but... by rmdingler · 2013-07-23 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think we have minions. :)
  Ah, the most reliable of allies.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
39. Re:I would, but... by rmdingler · 2013-07-23 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  They will laugh at a single voice of dissent, perhaps mock even a dozen, but know that each additional naysayer chips away at their belief set. Imagine being aware of the Windsor's primogeniture a month ago. If the coverage proves anything at all, it's that if you are exposed to enough fecal matter some of it will stick.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
40. Re:I would, but... by slick7 · 2013-07-23 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  Basically, they are saying, " We are getting off our asses by getting off our asses, and if you are not happy about that, then you are not happy. "
  If these CONgressMEN really wanted to do something, then they should stop taking the money from the people who tell them how to think and start listening to the people who voted them into office, you know, the people who can have them recalled AND have them investigated.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
41. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 14:19 · Score: 0
  
  Fifteen years ago, you (and 95% of my fellow techies) would've said I was tinfoil hat material. (I may be a visionary but I'm fucking tired of being right.)
  ... When I was younger I thought people were naive, but even as I got older I heard educated adults say: "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to hide". Actual educated adults that should know better. ...
  To mis-purpose a quote from Sneakers, "Don't kid yourself, they're not that educated."
42. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 14:24 · Score: 0
  
  You lack so much imagination you don't deserve to have your voice heard but I'll help you anyways:
  All that metadata == easy-peasy way to compile a national list of gun owners. Best part is, it's true.
  No one's too bona-fide conservative to risk fucking with the second AND the fourth. No one.
  You're welcome.
43. Re:I would, but... by mjwx · 2013-07-23 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Now you at least know how non-us-citizens feel when they talk to you guys, basically, "who cares if the NSA taps the whole world, as long as they don't tap us-citizens, suck it"...
  So if it's OK for the NSA to spy on British citizens it must be equally OK for MI6 to spy on US citizens.... Wait.... Haven't the US and UK got some kind of intelligence sharing treaty?
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
44. Re:I would, but... by mjwx · 2013-07-23 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Now you at least know how non-us-citizens feel when they talk to you guys, basically, "who cares if the NSA taps the whole world, as long as they don't tap us-citizens, suck it"...
  So if it's OK for the NSA to spy on British citizens it must be equally OK for MI6 to spy on US citizens.... Wait.... Haven't the US and UK got some kind of intelligence sharing treaty?
  I imagine something similar happing between Australia and Canada with CSIS saying "we're sorry aboot the spying" and ASIO saying "no wucking furry's mate, we couldn't be arsed spying, it's Beer o'clock".
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
45. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  No, they're right. No body in Kansas government listens to anybody. The state is like 95% Republican and they keep electing Democratic Govs (remember, Sebelius used to be the Gov of Kansas).
46. Re: I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot a step in that rinse, wash, repeat government cycle.
  MASSIVE BLOODSHED!
47. Re:I would, but... by jma05 · 2013-07-23 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  > In other words, the NSA spying on foreigners is their job.
  Spying on foreigners who are SPIES and perhaps those in government is their job.
  A spy agency spying on all foreign civilians they can is quite unprecedented.
  This further changes perceptions on US worldwide. As a citizen, this matters you.
  If you are a person in US IT, it especially matters to you. Foreign companies are beginning to move away from US products.
  > If you're a foreigner being spied on by the NSA, take it up with your own government. If YOUR government won't protect you from OUR government, consider getting a new government.
  How colonial of you.
48. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  So what country are you from then?
49. Re:I would, but... by TheGratefulNet · 2013-07-23 15:31 · Score: 2
  
  what? trample them with an elephant??
  btw, even if they pass a new law or amendment, it won't do what we want it to do.
  there is an outcry from the people (to some degree) but those in power know they want to keep this golden goose.
  so, they'll make it seem like they've 'changed' but, in fact, it will be a facade. I would bet my entire savings account that this won't change the underlying behavior of the spy system. some veneer will be created to placate the masses, but business will continue as usual, just better hidden.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
50. Re:I would, but... by fustakrakich · 2013-07-23 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  ...we can aim for a revolution and a new start.
  Again??? Is really going to be the 'natural cycle' for all of eternity? I guess i should just make the best of it and fire up another fatty. That's not the kind of 'revolution' I'm interested in.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
51. Re:I would, but... by fustakrakich · 2013-07-23 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you look at the most recent election results, you will see that less than 1.5% voiced any disapproval. Anyone that votes for a republican or democrat most definitely approves. All this noise is just noise. The party's over. Expecting the authorities to show respect is like expecting the scorpion not to sting. The old parable could not be more true.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
52. Re:I would, but... by fustakrakich · 2013-07-23 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  The government has been violating the constitution since 1791, and it still stands. It seems that people decided that the government is more important. Eh, who am I to argue? It's the same story throughout history.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
53. Re:I would, but... by Khyber · 2013-07-23 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  "One more metadata tag in some disk drive in Utah."
  PROTIP: Utah isn't going to exist much longer thanks to the NSA. There's already talk across usenet and various forums of a full-out armed assault on the state to crush the lie that is the Mormon religion, and anything that upholds it, right down to the NSA funding.
  If you live there, GTFO now before a bunch of talking heads with guns takes it out and anyone that thinks of agreeing with it.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
54. Re:I would, but... by Khyber · 2013-07-23 16:56 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  "This is what hadoop is for."
  Ell Oh Ell Oh Ell Oh Ell
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
55. Re:I would, but... by CodeBuster · 2013-07-23 17:15 · Score: 2
  
  If young people don't pick up the fight that is literally their loss.
  "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." - Ronald Reagan.
56. Re:I would, but... by davester666 · 2013-07-23 17:18 · Score: 2
  
  Why? All their "donors" call them direct on their personal cell phones.
  Now, if those cell phones were being monitored, that would cause a shitstorm.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
57. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 17:35 · Score: 0
  
  Most orgs that have 800#s have ANI. Look it up-- like caller-id but more choice.
  Your cellphone put you in the conference room. You can be tracked easily to very confined geometry.
  So it was you. You don't even have to confess, we hacked the VoIP PBX long ago.
  What if I don't bring my cellphone into the conference room?
58. Re:I would, but... by Aerosiecki · 2013-07-23 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Pitchforks. Torches. More effective than phone calls.
  
  --
  
  Cherish. Live. Dream.
59. Re:I would, but... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-23 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  "If you have an opinion that disagrees with mine, Suck It." Sincerely Your Congressman
  At least that's refreshing candor. Compare vs. form letters where a Congressman supports the right of abortion "but is personally opposed to it".
  Apparently they rage around their house all day telling their daughters not to get abortions.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
60. Re:I would, but... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-23 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Those who study human nature have fretted about this for a long, long time.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
61. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 20:05 · Score: 0
  
  I am delighted to predict that your constitution won't protect you from NSA the same way it did not.
  The idea that all men born equal is above your constitution. NSA spying on everyone may not follow the word of your constitution, but it sure does follow the spirit of your constitution. Being born in certain place does not make you more equal than some foreigners.
  Enjoy it when pledging your allegiance to your flag and the republic with liberty and justice for all.
62. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 20:45 · Score: 0
  
  To be fair, as long as they aren't sharing information with the other governments (we know they are, but let's assume that the spy agencies aren't for the purposes of this post), I almost don't care if foreign governments spy on me. They can't detain me, throw me in jail, or use that information to punish me because I have political beliefs different than whoever is in charge that minute. I'd rather it not happen at all, but since that isn't possible, I'd at least like to minimize the bad that can come of it first.
  That, and the information that they CAN get from me is (not really, but try to understand the point I'm making with this) going to be limited to information that passes through their geographical borders anyway. When an agency in our own country does the spying, it can see almost everything in, out, or inside.
63. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 21:43 · Score: 0
  
  Incorrect. It's just over 50%. They don't care if it's 50.1% or 51%, just as long as it's just over half. And by the people, I assume you mean registered voters who care enough to actually vote.
64. Re:I would, but... by postbigbang · 2013-07-23 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  You might be ok. You can also turn it off, or put it into a radio isolation device (a shielded case) so as to not link your location to the room where the call is being made.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
65. Re:I would, but... by bonehead · 2013-07-23 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  I was born and lived during a time of freedom so I can be thankful for being at the right part of the cycle AND that is all. If young people don't pick up the fight that is literally their loss. In fact, I'm of the opinion now that we may as well accelerate the process. Let's just take away people freedom so people finally get the point. We can try to hold on to dwindling freedom or we can aim for a revolution and a new start.
  This is pretty much where I'm at.
  When I was young, naive, and idealistic, my opinion would have been that we should try to fix the situation.
  As I've gotten older, I've become more of a realist than an idealist, and it is now crystal clear to me that the vast majority of the public never opens their eyes enough to realize that there's anything broken that needs fixing. As a result, in realistic terms, the situation is effectively unfixable.
  Should a revolution spring up, I will gladly and enthusiastically do my part. But as a realist, I see no chance of that happening during my lifetime. I have little choice but to build up my own tiny little corner of the world into a place where I can be reasonably comfortable, and insulate myself from the decline of this nation as best I can. The ignorant masses who value a false sense of security over actual freedom outnumber people like me, and are going to get their way.
  The best I can do at this point is find myself a few peaceful acres out in the country somewhere, and try to let it affect me as little as possible.
66. Re:I would, but... by bonehead · 2013-07-23 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Pull the battery. Turning it off isn't enough.
  To be on the safe side, leave it at home that day.
67. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 23:33 · Score: 0
  
  ... that is literally their loss
  
  What about '1984'? You know, that story about perpetual surveillance of the financially comfortable, well-educated citizens.
  It tells us that 'ignorance is knowledge' and 'slavery is freedom: People who don't know or care, will function just the same. Not caring about slavery and ignorance is a choice. But knowing about slavery and ignorance requires information and freedom which can be suppressed by government.
  
  ... people finally get the point ...
  
  In '1984', Winston was old enough to remember the truth; he cared too. The ubiquitous surveillance and subsequent re-education changed that: After his conscience was tortured, Winston cared about obedience to 'Big brother'. Then he lost his freedom of thought and freedom to be different.
  
  ... hold on to dwindling freedom ...
  
  '1984' was story where that didn't work. That's why it's an instruction manual to the intelligence services.
68. Re:I would, but... by bonehead · 2013-07-23 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm in pretty much the same boat, except that I no longer differentiate between Democrats and Republicans. None of them represent my beliefs. In fact, after many years of watching politics in this country, I have come to the conclusion that they all share the same beliefs and goals. The differences presented to us in the media are just a bit of theater meant to keep us playing the game while distracting us from what they're really up to behind the scenes.
69. Re:I would, but... by RabidReindeer · 2013-07-24 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." - Ronald Reagan.
  That's a great quote. Too bad he had to ruin it by destroying the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" component of US freedom. It was under Reagan's watch that we started having to prove that we were neither illegal aliens (proof of citizenship required) nor drug addicts (test required) before we could hired in most jobs.
  It's also the same period of time when the Communications Act of 1934 was broken by the mobile phone lobby. Under the original act it was legal to listen to anything on the radio on any frequency, as long as you didn't divulge non-public information. Under the Reagan-era revision, it became illegal to listen to designated frequencies. Of course, back then, you could also listen to most public service radio systems. Now they're increasingly encrypted for even the most trivial applications. The more your local, state and and federal government insist that innocent people have nothing to hide, it seems the more they hide themselves.
70. Re:I would, but... by bluegutang · 2013-07-24 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  First they came for the phone callers. But I did not speak up because I did not want to get into a database in Utah...
71. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you're a foreigner being spied on by the NSA, take it up with your own government. If YOUR government won't protect you from OUR government, consider getting a new government.
  That sounds a lot like "I'm not driving on the wrong side of the road, everyone else is!"
  Replacing my government won't do much good as long as the USA remains an allied dysfunctional democracy. I much favour the all out economical boycott. Force the USA to either shape up, or let them rot in their own cesspool. After all, the USA is a much bigger importer than exporter. Nothing works as well to promote political change (in a capitalist country) as a good kick in the nuts of large industry.
72. Re:I would, but... by intermodal · 2013-07-24 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  At least you can contact your congressman. I live in a rural part of the border region of his district and despite my geographic location being in his district, I have to flat out lie on his website about my address to be allowed to send him anything at all. And at that point, it still fails more than half the time and eats my text. Good thing I know how to cut and paste.
  
  --
  In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
73. Re:I would, but... by intermodal · 2013-07-24 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  (I may be a visionary but I'm fucking tired of being right.)
  AMEN! A thousand times amen. I liked it better when I could hope I was wrong, but alas, all the horrible things I have long been saying (which are ironically the same concerns which led to our bill of rights) are being confirmed on a daily basis at this point.
  
  --
  In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
74. Re:I would, but... by Xarvh · 2013-07-24 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  If you're a foreigner being spied on by the NSA, take it up with your own government. If YOUR government won't protect you from OUR government, consider getting a new government.
  True that, but just don't scream TRAITORS! next time France doesn't join you in a war.
  You can't have it both ways.
  Most EU countries are your NATO allies.
  Also, we are as able to get a new government as you are.
75. Re:I would, but... by dave1791 · 2013-07-24 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  It is probably more insidious, given the nature of the allegations in Germany against the BND. Suppose you are a spy agency and want to spy on your own population, but are thwarted by laws about that pesky due process? No problem! Simply cut a deal with other spy agencies. "You spy on our people, because spying on foreigners is your job. We spy on your people, because spying on foreigners is our job. It all goes into the same database and no laws were technically broken".
76. Re:I would, but... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-07-24 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Replacing my government won't do much good as long as the USA remains an allied dysfunctional democracy.
  Consider seriously the idea of NOT staying a US ally if it bugs you.
  Trust me, if you want to get the US government's attention, wagging nicely whenever they pet you isn't the way to do it.
  Try dumping a few Treaties with the USA, and you'll suddenly get a lot more attention.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
77. Re:I would, but... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-07-24 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Being born in certain place does not make you more equal than some foreigners.
  So, I take it your government does NO foreign intelligence whatsoever? If it does, it's applying *gasp* different rules to foreigners that to its own citizens.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
78. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  It is then your duty to organize your statesmen to vote that parasitic garbage out of office ASAP.
79. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  I've got a better idea. How about us "foreigners" (you dick btw) stop using all your US cloud tech services en masse and our companies decide they don't want industrial espionage going on which sees info handed by the NSA to your corporations until your entire shitty compromised tech sector feels the chill wind of isolation?
  Because the only language sociopaths like you and your government understand is money.
  Funnily enough I couldn't give a shit about YOU being spied on. Your country needs to get the fuck out of our business, though.
  Ugly Americans.
80. Re:I would, but... by shinglehouse · 2013-07-24 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I called from my VZW phone to force that very issue.
81. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  The interests of his constituency, not the views. The views would be near damned impossible. How do you get 43.5% of a politician to vote for a ban on abortion, and 46.1% against, with 10.4% abstaining?
  Illegal immigrants. Duh.
82. Re:I would, but... by Hobadee · 2013-07-24 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  You should be talking to your Representative, not your Congressman. The Representatives are the ones who are supposed to voice the will of the people - Congressmen voice the will of the state. That is why there are only 2 Congressmen per state, but multiple Representatives based on the population.
  Representatives have your best interest in mind, Congressmen have your states. (Well, that's the theory at least.)
  
  --
  ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
83. Re:I would, but... by Hobadee · 2013-07-24 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Err.... where's the edit button?
  I confused "Congress" with "Senate". Senators and Representatives are both in Congress. Congressman can refer to either.
  
  --
  ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
84. Re:I would, but... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-07-24 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Agree and I just rounded up to the nearest integer. We can do that.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
85. Re:I would, but... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-07-24 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  I mostly agreed with what you said except for:
  
  Anyone that votes for a republican or democrat most definitely approves.
  For as long as I can remember, the general elections have been more about picking the lesser of two (or rarely three) evils than a whole hearted agreement much less a 100% approval.
  Most of the time people are fooled into thinking that the freshman congress person will holdfast to their positions on individual issues only to later realize that they will assuredly cave and vote the party line. The ridiculous two-party system guarantees this by basically extorting the newcomers into holding the party line at the risk of not getting any choice appointments on committees. The committee memberships are just as important to the constituents as the activities on the floor.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
86. Re:I would, but... by thoughtlover · 2013-07-24 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  We can try to hold on to dwindling freedom or we can aim for a revolution and a new start.
  That there's little history being taught in schools (Oliver Stone still did not address the main reasons for WWI and WWII --international bankers' overall influence on politics), I have no reason to believe that people understand what they're losing. Not to be negative; I'm all for a peaceful revolution. However, using history as a predictor, the chances of that are not good.
  
  --
  No sig for you! Come back one year!
87. Re: I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  Tell him/her that any question regarding the effectiveness of the domestic use of the PRISM spy program has been rendered moot by it's disclosure. Realistically the only remaining target is the American people.
88. Re:I would, but... by masterjames · 2013-07-24 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  agreed. speaking with family and friends, ive asked if we should start voting to lose our freedoms faster so it hurts more and something will happen but ive been told that i dont need to do that because there are enough stupid people that will do it for me.
89. Re:I would, but... by fustakrakich · 2013-07-24 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  For as long as I can remember, the general elections have been more about picking the lesser of two (or rarely three) evils...
  Well, that is where all of you fall down. I've belabored this point far to many times to care about arguing it anymore. However, when crooked people are reelected over and over pulling 40 or 50 year long careers, I will always maintain that that is what the people want as a matter of convenience to be on the side that's winning. It is truly that simple.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
90. Re:I would, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  That is a gross misunderstanding of the bill of rights, the constitution in general, and the entire American system of government. The most fundamental principle of American political philosophy is that all human beings have inalienable rights that must not be violated by any government. Some of those rights are spelled out in the amendments, and the US government is specifically prohibited from infinging on those rights in all cases. There are no exceptions for foreigners. The fourth amendment protects everybody in the world from unwarranted search and seizure by the US government.
91. Re:I would, but... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-07-25 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Well the system is stacked in favor of the incumbent. The enormous "war chests" that they can accumulate to pay for their re-election campaigns, The seniority rules that penalize states that elect freshman lawmakers, the lack of term limits, and the lack of campaign finance reforms. The Citizens United ruling made by SCOTUS didn't make things any better.
  Every country follows the golden rule: Who ever has the gold gets to make the rules.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
92. Re:I would, but... by fustakrakich · 2013-07-25 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  You're making a good argument against the concept of free will :-)
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
93. Re:I would, but... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-07-25 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  And we get back to my original point, picking the lesser of two evils:
  Should I stick with the incumbent even though I don't agree with him on some of the major issues and continue to benefit from his senior positions in committee when it comes to federal dollars entering my state?
  Or should I vote for the new guy who made a lot of promises that seems difficult to keep, has views similar to mine, and is now a freshman in a minority party with no committee positions capable of keeping current projects going or bringing in new funds?
  Despite what idealists believe, the job of the representative is to benefit his constituents. You may not agree with a senator or house member from my state but he is doing everything needed to keep us happy. In the end, that is what really counts.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
94. Re:I would, but... by eric_baudaux · 2013-07-28 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  A government will not gain too much power... "become oppressive... people revolt... form new government... repeat" if it's exclusively located at local level with non professional elected representatives, along with a spread out of non political relays across the world (localism). Democracy (universal) or primate change with active participation, thru inclusion, within humanocracy (since 1995 and not effectively stopped yet).
Not an amendment - by Darth+Snowshoe · 2013-07-23 08:33 · Score: 0

This is not a vote on an amendment to the Constitution, but instead a vote on an amendment to an appropriations bill in the House. The OP could be much clearer.
1. Re:Not an amendment - by OverlordQ · 2013-07-23 08:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  > The OP could be much clearer.
  Or you could be smart enough to realize that the word amendment isn't defined as "Modifies the US Constitution"
  
  --
  Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
2. Re:Not an amendment - by icebike · 2013-07-23 09:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The other thing that could be clearer is that this has exactly zero chance of having any success.
  Congress defunding something merely results in the administration transferring discretionary funds to the program so that nothing is changed, other than the Forest service doesn't get new ranger trucks this year, or the Coast Guard runs obsolete cutters for another year past their life expectancy (which expired 25 years ago).
  The money thusly transferred will be totally lost in the morass of government accounting and end up being more secret than the secret budget of the NSA.
  Until Congress gets the balls to outlaw this program with criminal penalties, simply taking away funds away is a pointless gesture, like sending a kid to his room with no desert, but sneaking a double helping of cake and cookies into his later.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3. Re:Not an amendment - by NFN_NLN · 2013-07-23 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  ...nothing is changed, other than the Forest service doesn't get new ranger trucks this year, or the Coast Guard runs obsolete cutters for another year past their life expectancy (which expired 25 years ago).
  How is that ineffective? The more the government shits on people, the more it contributes to public dissent, the more public dissent and malcontent the closer people come to snapping.
  It really saddened me when the government stepped in with TARP money. Sure they stopped a major financial crisis, but I wanted to see some CEOs being drawn and quartered as a deterrent for future CEOs.
4. Re:Not an amendment - by TapeCutter · 2013-07-23 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Congress ended the Vietnam war by defunding it, this is no different.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
5. Re:Not an amendment - by icebike · 2013-07-23 11:42 · Score: 2
  
  Its a lot different.
  You can hid the cost of massive data gathering because its almost all automated, already in place, and all you have to do is
  pay the power bill for the taps already in place at Verizon and other providers. Its just money and not that much of it.
  Its not ships and planes and armies carrying on bombing campaigns.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
6. Re:Not an amendment - by Pseudonym · 2013-07-23 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  Congress defunding something merely results in the administration transferring discretionary funds to the program so that nothing is changed [...]
  You might have missed the words "chain reaction" in the writeup. Anyone who isn't completely naive knows that this amendment, if it passes, isn't even close to the end of the story.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
7. Re:Not an amendment - by icebike · 2013-07-23 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Which is exactly why it won't pass.
  Regardless of posturing, none of these representatives are going to vote against the NSA since they were the ones that authorized this entire mess in the first place.
  Remember that the Democratic Party will not let anything touch Obama, even if it means giving George Bush a pass.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
8. Re:Not an amendment - by Loki_1929 · 2013-07-23 12:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Actually, defunding this program has an enormous impact on pending court cases. One cannot argue that Congress has authorized this program if Congress has voted to deny it funding. As such, the executive branch would then be running an unauthorized program against the express will of the legislature. At that point, the primary argument against court challenges - that this is legal because it has Congress' stamp of approval - is moot and the court challenges actually have a better chance of having the program declared illegal.
  At that point, if the executive branch continues running it, they risk massive backlash and someone (not someone -too- high up of course) will probably go to prison.
  
  --
  -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
9. Re:Not an amendment - by TangoMargarine · 2013-07-23 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  You used the word "amendment" in both clauses of your claim that the word "amendment" is too unclear...
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
10. Re:Not an amendment - by Pseudonym · 2013-07-23 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless of posturing, none of these representatives are going to vote against the NSA since they were the ones that authorized this entire mess in the first place.
  You may be underestimating the number of congresscritters who are pissed off that they thought they were authorising one thing but the executive branch decided it meant something else.
  Having said that, you may be right. Even then, the campaign is still not a waste of time. The longer the story stays in the news cycle, the better.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
11. Re:Not an amendment - by icebike · 2013-07-23 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  With the smear campaign being launched against Snowden, (Including forcing allies to detain the executive planes of sovereign nations) it appears this administration will stop at nothing to defend this crazy program.
  I have no doubt they will employ all forms of inducement, legal or illegal, to force their party to get in line.
  I hope you are right, and I've underestimated the level of anger, but based on the weasel words in form letters I got from my representatives, I doubt it. 5 will get you 10, that they all cave in.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
12. Re:Not an amendment - by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  More to the point, why are they voting merely to defund something that clearly violates fundamental rights, and hence was never legal in the first place.
  Get rid of the people in NSA that are doing this. If a judge violates his or her oath to uphold the Bill of Rights by ruling in favour of it, get rid of the judge. Don't waste my time playing games with funding.
Nothing to see here by Russ1642 · 2013-07-23 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Treadstone? You're worried... It's all but decommissioned at this point. All right. What's next? Okay. This is... Black Briar. Black Briar is a joint DOD communications program that we really feel has good traction. It's got legs. It'll run and run.
1. Re:Nothing to see here by H0p313ss · 2013-07-23 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  I can neither confirm no deny that.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
2. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying Edward Snowden was bourne to be a snitch...?
Call your.... wtf? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:40 · Score: 1

Call your political people all you want, but they're the dipshits that need such, or so they would like us to think. The problem here isn't that they're spying on us, it's that data can be used for deeeep levels of doublespeak that only regular citizens can get caught up in. No one will ever hear of a fucking political leader doing wrong, as a result of the PRISM findings. Also, if they do find such, and report it, they'll likely end up hiding in a Russian airport.
1. Re:Call your.... wtf? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Elliot Spitzer was busted as a result of NSA trawling.
This is not enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:41 · Score: 1

"Not spying on Americans[tm]"?
Uhm. Did you lot forget that the USoA proclaimed itself the guardian of teh free intarwebz? And also that more than a little international traffic passes in, then right out the USoA again, in both directions?
If you want to be trustable as a global guardian, you can't treat this few people different from all the rest, you have to stand up equally for each and every one of them. So if you don't want wholesale warrantless tapping of bloody everything, you have to stop it for everyone, not just for you.
If you don't get that, you're not fit to stay guardian of teh intarwebz. To the point that I can't tell which would be worse, putting the oversight with the VN, with censorship-pushing Russia and wholesale censoring China (and a fsckton of dodgy other countries, like the UK) both on its security council, or you.
So yeah, call your representatives. And tell'em to shut the whole thing down, not just stop it for the happy few. You owe it to the image of that great and idealistic country you like to try and convince the world of, if not so much to your loudly speaking deeds so far.
The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because nothing says reassuring like a vote from congress.
Domestic spying isn't going to end folks. It's here to stay, you're all being profiled now and you don't care enough to do anything about it. The day a new iPhone or Galaxy Nexus comes out you'll all still buy it, even though you've just helped enable domestic spying through your purchase. The day the PS4 with its microphone-enabled controllers and the XBone with its Kinect 2 you'll all rush out and buy it anyway. Hell, Android phones came with CarrierIQ PREINSTALLED, remember that? A keylogger, preinstalled on your phone. They aren't even trying to hide it any more, your phone is a mouthpiece and eyepiece of the State now whether you like it or not.
All I've seen on Slashdot and Reddit about this whole debacle is nothing but a bunch of whining and slacktivism, the most amusing of which was a meme post on Reddit whining on about the lack of "complaints" regarding the NSA lately. Complaints. That's all you have after every right and freedom your own ancestors fought to achieve, complaints? How can you honestly still sing "the land of the free" with a straight face when the anthem plays? The United States of America is the shining example of totalitarianism in the world today.
Let that sink in for a moment and then lament everything that you've lost, because none of you care enough to take it back.
1. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  And what exactly are you doing to change this besides complaining and internet slacktivism??
2. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  The backlash has to start somewhere. Enough people are angry about the NSA. So we'll stop the NSA, and then we'll see if we can turn that anger against private snooping. Mocking an attempt to actually do something about the problem makes you worse than the folks you're lambasting.
3. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by spacepimp · 2013-07-23 08:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So here you are posting on Slashdot how no one is doing enough to stop this, and still you are complete anonymous pussy coward? It takes a real man to hide behind anonymity when he talks about manning up to safeguard our liberties. You don't know what I've done or how I've done it so piss off. Secondly your baited comments about technology are showing the complete lack of understanding of the political process, and the nature of technology. Going back to the stone doesn't solve the problem, and using technology i not the root of the problem. Altogether you are a fool.
4. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by LordLimecat · 2013-07-23 09:17 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The United States of America is the shining example of totalitarianism in the world today.
  We have a major problem with the constitution being seen as completely irrelevant (see Obama's decision that he can unilaterally override legislation with Obamacare / immigration; the idea that the fed has the constitutional right to mandate healthcare; the idea that state governments have the right to prohibit firearm posession; etc ad nauseam).
  That said, I have a strong feeling you've never been to a totalitarian government, and have no idea what youre talking about. All governments tend towards totalitarianism, but we're pretty far from it. Part of the issue with "nothing but complaints" is that people get this ridiculous idea that "we've lost, we have no freedoms, and we're already a dictatorship". Guess what, no we're not, we still have a large number of rights, and battles over a lot of them are STILL being fought.
  So next time the discussion over gun control or the first amendment or the 4th amendment comes up, rather than saying "think of the children" and conceding, and rather than saying "we've lost' and giving up, try actually standing up for the principle and letting it affect how you vote. I have a strong feeling that this defeatism is a lot of the reason so many people dont vote, and you really should not be complaining about slacktivism on the one hand and encouraging apathy on the other.
5. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  "Anonymous pussy coward," that's rich. It's been so long since you've had privacy that you can't even remember it, can you?
  Altogether you are a traitor to your own country, and if there were any justice in the world it wouldn't be innocent people rotting away in Abu Ghraib, it'd be you and your despicable, traitor family. Spout obscenities like a child on XBox Live all you like, you'll be a traitor when you go to sleep tonight and you'll be a traitor when you wake up tomorrow morning. A traitor who refused to stand up for the same principles that people have died for. It's people like you who don't deserve rights, people like you who should be put in cages and treated like base animals.
  People like you. Traitors.
  Truth hurts, doesn't it? Incidentally, since you're so proud of your lack of privacy, maybe we ought to talk about your alter ego? Seeing as how you're far less cowardly than I am and all?
  http://www.funnyjunk.com/user/spacepimp
  Choice highlights from spacepimp's own profile:
  "Im spacepimp. yes, Im a furry.interests, females.fur color, dark blue.fur length, 3 in.height, 6.10 .Weight, 193 pounds.rage hobbies or moon transformation, eating the flesh of the innocent, mutilating livestock, raping sergals.hobbies self transformation, skateboarding, cage fighting, smoking weed, posting on funnyjunk, fappin, sexing up many threads, dirty talking bad girls, bein a goof, picking fights,etc.job, overlord of all Lykens, and space pimp"
  A so-called man who lists some of his hobbies as "mutilating livestock" and "raping" fictional animals is demanding to be taken seriously. The "overlord of all Lykens" no less. You'll forgive me if I don't laugh my ass off.
6. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  You can have rights under a dictatorship. Ask yourself when the last time the "will of the people" actually changed anything that matters?
7. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Hatta · 2013-07-23 09:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We have a lot of rights, but they've been largely neutered. e.g., what good is the right to free speech, if your speech can never affect public policy? What good is the right to a trial by jury, if you have to risk the rest of your life in order to exercise it? Really now, what are these "large number of rights" that we still have?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
8. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  "...you're all being profiled now and you don't care enough to do anything about it."
  And that's why I got off my ass and phoned my Congressman to support Representative Amash's amendment to HR-2397 when it comes up for a vote tomorrow.
  What are you doing other than making noise?
9. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by meta-monkey · 2013-07-23 10:13 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry, buddy, the Third Amendment is rock solid. Halliburton would never let the government quarter soldiers in our homes instead of contracting with them to build more barracks.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
10. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  The idiot redneck tea partiers still have the right to own firearms.
  Funny how the "dumb" people still have the right they think is important, but the "smart" people seem to have lost all the ones they think is more important.
11. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  What good are rights if they can be taken away or ignored? They aren't rights at all.
12. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  The United States of America is the shining example of totalitarianism in the world today.
  We have a major problem with the constitution being seen as completely irrelevant (see Obama's decision that he can unilaterally override legislation with Obamacare / immigration; the idea that the fed has the constitutional right to mandate healthcare; the idea that state governments have the right to prohibit firearm posession; etc ad nauseam).
  That said, I have a strong feeling you've never been to a totalitarian government, and have no idea what youre talking about. All governments tend towards totalitarianism, but we're pretty far from it. Part of the issue with "nothing but complaints" is that people get this ridiculous idea that "we've lost, we have no freedoms, and we're already a dictatorship". Guess what, no we're not, we still have a large number of rights, and battles over a lot of them are STILL being fought.
  So next time the discussion over gun control or the first amendment or the 4th amendment comes up, rather than saying "think of the children" and conceding, and rather than saying "we've lost' and giving up, try actually standing up for the principle and letting it affect how you vote. I have a strong feeling that this defeatism is a lot of the reason so many people dont vote, and you really should not be complaining about slacktivism on the one hand and encouraging apathy on the other.
  I'm just wondering, is the rent cheep in fairy land? Clearly, you're not living in the real world!!
13. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by someSnarkyBastard · 2013-07-23 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  The right to consume?
  Seriously, I'm pretty sure this is the one right that even our current administration would not dare to mess with.
14. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by flimflammer · 2013-07-23 11:09 · Score: 2
  
  You are truly an idiot if you believe such a common alias could be easily tied to the person you're replying to. Be honest, how many normal "spacepimp" profiles did you go through on Google before you found the incriminating furry one you could attempt to use to devalue his post?
15. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by khallow · 2013-07-23 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  The idiot redneck tea partiers still have the right to own firearms.
  What's wrong with people succeeding at keeping rights they feel are important?
  
  Funny how the "dumb" people still have the right they think is important, but the "smart" people seem to have lost all the ones they think is more important.
  Funny how the "dumb" people succeed where the "smart" people don't.
16. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  BRAVO BRAVO BRAV-FUCKING-AVO!!!!!!!! ...don't have an account on /., don't give a shit to have an account, but SPOT ON.
  THANK YOU!
17. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  I have a strong feeling you never went behind the Iron Curtain while it was up. Few did. And fewer still that were completely pro-US like me (and the ones I travelled with as far as I can tell).
  You're probably not allowed to go to Cuba (which is totalitarian and at the extreme has just the kind of "institutions" which that implies, as does the US now) but you might have been to China and yes no matter how much one might love the Chinese (I do) the Chinese state is without a shred of doubt totalitarian (with all the baggage included).
  By circumstance I did go behind the Iron Curtain. For weeks. With a family who were allowed to visit their remaining family (can you guess which country yet?). You seldom see the totalitarianism face to face unless you seek it out (not advisable), on the surface there was little difference to any western European society except for a fairly unobtrusive Russian military presence (and keep in mind this was before ordinary people even knew about the internet or had anything much but a C64 or Amiga). Of course I saw the sunniest side of things due to being a guest at the very least one step removed from the realities; I was very young and I had no demands and no responsibilities and got to spend my time having fun with friends and likeable people.
  Whoever wrote that "the United States of America is the shining example of totalitarianism in the world today" is sadly absolutely 100% right. While your modern approach reaches much further than any other historic example the combined fact that you're even better than your historic enemies at making it seem palatable and righteous to a large segment of your own population doesn't make it less so; the system already has enough power that even those in control of the system won't be able to stop it. They might already be the biggest victims of it. It is what these systems always do, it is what they unavoidably evolve towards, it is their emergent property.
  Anyone in power ought to know better. None of them did or do. Fresh historic lessons from last century have completely escaped them. Many of the politicians were not only alive then but were also already politicians at that point!
  And ideology is a red herring. Ideology becomes inconsequential fluff when when $somebody are stupid enough to repeat this error. If revolutions eat their children alive then surveillance digests them.
  Thermonuclear war is not the only game where not playing is the only chance of winning (MAD just formalized this with the benefit that all parties knew everyone else also knew).
  Enjoy!
18. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Endymion · 2013-07-23 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly!
  Now, the big questions is: do you or anybody else truly believe that the NSA's (or anybody else's) search tools and data mining heuristics can magically avoid making that exact same mistake?
  Too much data-capture just adds noise. Any database of sufficient size is going to be full of this kind of incorrect association. In the end, with the vast amounts of data available, you can probably find "data" that "supports" any conclusion you want.
  This is the danger of sweeping data collection: not that they care about any traditional concern, but that decisions are being made because of sombody saw animals^Wterrorists in the clouds^Wemail and cell-phone metadata.
  
  --
  Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
19. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by cold+fjord · 2013-07-23 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  We have a lot of rights, but they've been largely neutered. e.g., what good is the right to free speech, if your speech can never affect public policy?
  The rights of American citizens haven't been neutered. There are all still there, none have been repealed. There is no guarantee that any one person can get a legislator to change her or his mind, but you still have the right contact them to express your views. You also have the right to organize. Legislators are more likely to be moved by many people expressing the same view than if it is just one person.
  
  What good is the right to a trial by jury, if you have to risk the rest of your life in order to exercise it?
  Like George Zimmerman? No matter what they charge you with, they still have to prove it in a court of law if it goes to trial, and there is no guarantee for them either.
  Voting, freedom to travel, and all the usual ones.
  1 - Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
  2 - Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
  3 - No quartering of soldiers.
  4 - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. (Yes, I acknowledge the controversy. Criminal justice still has to play by the usual rules.)
  5 - Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
  6 - Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
  7 - Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
  8 - Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
  9 - Other rights of the people. ...
  + all the many rights extended by various federal laws.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
20. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by LordLimecat · 2013-07-23 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  what good is the right to free speech, if your speech can never affect public policy?
  "The right to have your opinion automatically enshrined in law" has never been in a right. You have more ability to get political speech out today than ever before, and I would argue that Obama's election and reelection is a pretty big example of people making their voice heard --free speech definitely played an enormous role in both races. Zimmerman is being defended by law enforcement against the threats you mention, and honestly hes probably keeping a low profile because the media is full of bloodsucking lampreys.
  No but youre right, apathy all the way man. Screw rights, embrace oblivion.
21. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by CodeBuster · 2013-07-23 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  The United States of America is the shining example of totalitarianism in the world today.
  As compared to Russia or Venezuela or Iran or any of the other countries were people are truly oppressed? The left in the United States loves to compare their petty inconveniences to the real suffering that goes on in the rest of the world with wildly hyperbolic language, but in so doing they merely demonstrate their foolishness for all to see. The United States has many problems, but totalitarianism isn't one of them.
22. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by GameboyRMH · 2013-07-23 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Venezuela [...] were people are truly oppressed
  
  LOLWUT?
  They have a democratically elected government that reflects the will of the people better than the US' has in decades. Yeah the government isn't great on freedom of the press...but see how the US treats whistleblowers and now even the most legit established journalists who report on the whistleblowing. And I'm pretty sure only one of those countries has secret interpretations of the law used in a secret court to make something otherwise illegal as all hell technically legal. And I'm not even going to start comparing the things they do to foreigners...
  It makes me laugh that so many Americans try to make Venezuela look like the South American USSR over freedom of the press issues not much worse than their own, and yet have nothing bad to say about Israel whatsoever.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
23. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  ... Obama's decision that he can unilaterally override legislation ...
  
  It was GW Bush who claimed he could by-pass any legislation. Thanks for the revisionist history. RM Nixon tried the same thing with "When the president does it, it's legal". By the way, laws were suspended in WW II and in the American civil war. Those wars ended but the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror' haven't.
  
  ... fed has the constitutional right to mandate healthcare ...
  
  Really, I would complain that my taxes were used to fund illegal war that I didn't want. But you think paying for your own health is optional? Please demand that your pension fund is optional.
24. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Hatta · 2013-07-24 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  I would argue that Obama's election and reelection is a pretty big example of people making their voice heard
  Obama's election is a pretty big example of the people's voice being ignored. The people voted for change, more people than had voted in any American election ever, and we got an extension of the Bush administration.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
25. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  Really? Gitmo anyone? Extraordinairy rendition? The fact a black man can legally get gunned down in the street just for being black, and therefore suspicious? Abu Garaib. Drone attacks. Forcing planes out of the sky like the lawless pirates you are.
  WAKE UP.
26. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2013-07-24 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  2 - Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
  #2 - Second Amendment is an incorrect interpretation.
  "In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[15][16] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[17]"
  
  --
  There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
27. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Hatta · 2013-07-24 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  1 - Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
  Freedom of religion is violated by faith based initiatives.
  Freedom of speech, like I said, is not much good if no one listens. And the list of prohibited speech just gets longer and longer. Oh, and let's not forget about "Free Speech zones".
  Freedom of press? Tell that to the reporters arrested and beaten while covering Occupy.
  Freedom of assembly? Just try assembling outside of a free speech zone e.g. during the conventions. Or just look at what happened to Occupy.
  2 - Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
  Try and keep a well regulated militia, and you'll end up like Ruby Ridge. You can have a gun for sport, but if you ever try to use it to justly defend yourself against the government, you'll end up like Cory Maye
  3 - No quartering of soldiers.
  Fair enough
  4 - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. (Yes, I acknowledge the controversy. Criminal justice still has to play by the usual rules.)
  Unless the state has "secret evidence".
  5 - Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
  Drone strikes on citizens, Salinas vs Texas, three strikes laws.
  6 - Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
  Indefinite detention.
  7 - Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
  Plea bargaining.
  8 - Freedom from excessive bail
  Justin Carter
  cruel and unusual punishments.
  Someone should tell that to Joe Arpaio.
  9 - Other rights of the people. ...
  Which has been applied when exactly? In all of US history? If they gave one shit about the 9th amdenment, we wouldn't be imprisoning thousands of people for drugs.
  And here's the real question. What recourse do we have when the government violates these rights? How do we actually hold them accountable? When we violate the law, we go to jail. When our leaders violate the highest law of the land, absolutely nothing happens to them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a rule that has no enforcement mechanism isn't a rule at all.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
28. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  So if you have option A and B. 'smart' and 'dumb' wants to keep A but only 'smart' cares enough to want to keep B... Without the 'smart' the 'dumb' might not have gotten option A.. The thing i think the previous poster wanted to make is that some things are not too important to a large part of the population because they don't see the downside without it.... And just ignoring people that actually are making a valid statement just because 'this does not affect me' could actually be classified as dumb.
  I classify people as dumb if any of these would match:
  - They do not vote.
  - They vote without actually knowing what the candidates stand for. Especially the ones that vote on the same thing every year "just because they have always done it". (If they do this i actually classify them as idiots)
  - They blindly follow and believe what the current administration says. (Hm, who was it that said something like 'Don't criticize the president during wartimes' )
  - They do not care if something is bad unless it affects them. (Illegal searches - Hey i dont do anything illegal so why should i care?)
  - They use a single news-source for all news. (Fox news... The news-station that outfoxes you)
  - They cannot objectively listen to other peoples views/ideas just because they are different. (Ex: 'They did this specific thing in a socialist country so it must be bad by default.' )
29. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the justice system does not work.... Most people accept a plea to avoid risking much longer sentences.. Also the cost of a lawyer can be quite high, and to get a public defender you really need to be poor.
  So let me give you an example.
  You go and buy a new car and start to drive it home. The thing is that the previous owner smoked pot and shot up from time to time and a few of those items where forgotten in the car... You get pulled over for speeding or alco-test or something else. When you open the door the police claim, since they are all forced to up their statistics, he did smell marijuana from the car so begins to search it and find first a few buts of marijuana and then some drug-perihelia and then away you go...
  This is quite a common thing, but with this data-mining taking place there are a few things more that can go wrong, and that you do not really have any control over.. For the above you could have searched the car and thrown everything out of it before driving home...
  So lets say you have a number of colleges that you hang out with from time to time, 2 of them know some other people that in turn have connections to group classified as terrorists. NSA has stated that they do 3 hops (ie you->friend->friend->friend). So now you are put on a watch-list so they keep tighter tabs on you.
  Now suddenly if you make some 'suspicious' purchases or fertilizer or stuff like that they have enough to pull you in without any evidence and then keep you basically indefinitely without trial.
30. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  If he's at work he may not be able to log on. I can't.
31. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by ogdenk · 2013-07-24 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  The idiot redneck tea partiers still have the right to own firearms.
  I'm a libertarian, not a tea partier. And yes I live in the woods but that doesn't make me a redneck. And nothing would stop *me* from owning a firearm. Just people like you who would choose to follow an unconstitutional ban.
  I'm a productive member of society. I hold a senior IT position. I have a family. And guess what, I own guns! Several of them. I really don't care if you don't like it. And NONE of them are for "hunting or sporting" purposes in any way shape or form. They are *WEAPONS*.
  It's a *RIGHT* for a reason, not a privilege. The day the 2nd amendment dies or is neutered is the day this government finally becomes completely illegitimate instead of just "getting there".
  
  Funny how the "dumb" people still have the right they think is important, but the "smart" people seem to have lost all the ones they think is more important.
  I consider the 2nd amendment just as vital as the 1st, 4th and 5th and I speak out just as much on those.
  Since when does owning a gun make you a dumb redneck? Even when I lived in a major US city as an apartment-dweller I had guns. A lot more people own guns than you think. A *LOT* more. There's no gun registration here either. Good luck with that gun ban. I'm sure it will lift the firearms right out of "dumb people's" hands and give the govt that monopoly on force you wish for so much.
32. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by LordLimecat · 2013-07-25 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of religion is violated by faith based initiatives.
  This is only the case if you deny free will.
  Freedom of religion just means that noone shall coerce you regarding religion. Speaking your mind, for the record, is not coercion.
33. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Hatta · 2013-07-25 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Of course I deny free will. There's absolutely no way to reconcile free will and the laws of physics. We have evidence to support the laws of physics, none to support free will. But that's beside the point.
  The point is that forcing me to fund religious enterprises through the use of tax money violates my freedom of religion.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
34. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by LordLimecat · 2013-07-25 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  I have seen you argue quite emphatically on a number of topics on this forum. I find it very hard to reconcile your claimed disbelief in free will with the time you spend trying to convince others of something.
  I also find it hard to discern what you might mean by "freedom" if you deny free will, or your objection to being coerced (since, lacking free will, you never have a say in anything anyways).
35. Re:The Greatest Lying Mouth of All Time(tm) by Hatta · 2013-07-26 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Brains are computational devices that operate on signals from the environment. I don't understand why the emmission of signals from myself that will interact with brains in a manner determined by the laws of physics, and hopefully produce a change in behavior, requires any sort of free will at all.
  You might as well claim that programmers believe that computers have free will, because they spend time using language to change the behavior of computers. The only difference in this case is that the brain computer is sloppier, and harder to program.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Representive Nugent? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:42 · Score: 0

I was afraid somebody did vote for Ted.
Luckily it's somebody else.
Unfortunately, it seems he is nearly as crazy.
1. Re:Representive Nugent? by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-23 08:51 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I was afraid somebody did vote for Ted.
  Luckily it's somebody else.
  Unfortunately, it seems he is nearly as crazy.
  I've wondered this for some time now - what, precisely, makes Ted Nugent so "crazy?" Because he's a firm defender of the 2nd Amendment? Or perhaps because he's concerned about illegal government activities such as domestic spying and summary executions without due process?
  Oh, I see - he's supported Republicans in the past. So, not so much "crazy," as "doesn't agree with my opinion 100%..."
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:Representive Nugent? by jeffmflanagan · 2013-07-23 08:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because he says insane things like that the president can suck his machine gun, or that if Obama gets reelected he'll be in prison or dead. How is it you didn't notice that he's gone crazy? He fits right in with the deranged wingnuts who ruined the Republican party.
3. Re:Representive Nugent? by h4rr4r · 2013-07-23 08:59 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Or maybe because he crapped his pants to get out of going to war.
  Real patriot there.
4. Re:Representive Nugent? by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-23 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe because he crapped his pants to get out of going to war.
  Real patriot there.
  OK, so maybe not the most patriotic thing to do, but is it really crazy? I mean, have you any desire to enter a combat zone?
  Dickhead is a label I don't necessarily disagree with, just can't understand where this "crazy" nonsense comes from (actually, I do - calling someone crazy marginalizes them, and makes it easier to ignore everything they have to say, regardless of how sane it may be).
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
5. Re:Representive Nugent? by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-23 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  Because he says insane things like that the president can suck his machine gun, or that if Obama gets reelected he'll be in prison or dead.
  What, precisely, is insane about that? Not being arch, I genuinely want to know if there's any valid reason why a man voicing his opinion would be considered an insane act.
  Granted, those aren't the most intellectually sound statements ever, but I've heard worse; my current favorite is, "We must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms." No, seriously, someone said that to me as recently as today. Really.
  I get the feeling that "crazy" in this debate can be translated to "holds an opinion I strongly disagree with."
  "How is it you didn't notice that he's gone crazy? He fits right in with the deranged wingnuts who ruined the Republican party."
  How is it that you can make such a broad generalization and still consider yourself sane? You should, as any sane person should, know that generalizations are defacto falsehoods, because to generalize is to assign specific factors to non-specific groups, and thus are highly inaccurate statements.
  Anyway, I always knew the definition of insanity to be, "performing the same action over and over, while expecting a different result." By that definition, every single person who supports either of the major parties, expecting Candidate A to be functionally different than Candidate B, is off their nut.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
6. Re:Representive Nugent? by Antipater · 2013-07-23 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  "We must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms" is a dumb statement, but not a crazy one. It makes a point, and it allows for rebuttal and debate. "Obama can go suck on my machine gun" is a crazy statement. Rather than put forward any argument, it's a personal threat against the man he disagrees with.
  Take a counterpoint: Charlton Heston was a firm defender of the 2nd Amendment. He spoke loudly and openly for his Constitutional rights. But he did not (afaik, at least) spew vitriol, personal attacks, or threats. Both Heston and Nugent held opinions that I disagree with, but I consider Nugent and not Heston to be crazy.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
7. Re:Representive Nugent? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  I was afraid somebody did vote for Ted.
  Luckily it's somebody else.
  Unfortunately, it seems he is nearly as crazy.
  I've wondered this for some time now - what, precisely, makes Ted Nugent so "crazy?" Because he's a firm defender of the 2nd Amendment? Or perhaps because he's concerned about illegal government activities such as domestic spying and summary executions without due process?
  Oh, I see - he's supported Republicans in the past. So, not so much "crazy," as "doesn't agree with my opinion 100%..."
  Ah, the excuse of victimization, it's not Ted that is the problem, it's the people who dare say there's a problem with him and his conduct, we should just dismiss them because they're only saying that because they disagree with him, and are trying to make him look bad.
  Which just goes to show, you're ignoring Ted Nugent's own demonizations in your frenetic attempt to avoid admitting that he's not the kind of person you want on your side.
  Here's a few of Ted Nugent's actions:
  http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/threatening-obama-is-only-the-10th-craziest-thing
  I'm sorry that you think the problem is on the end of people who disagree with Ted, but the reality you don't want to embrace is that Ted Nugent is a fucking nutbar who probably did too many drugs and fried his brains as bad as Ozzy.
8. Re:Representive Nugent? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, excuse me Mr. Jeff Flanagan, but why is that you have the red mark of the Devil next to your name, nobody else on /. does.
  Are you a Wizard?
9. Re:Representive Nugent? by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-23 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  "We must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms" is a dumb statement, but not a crazy one. It makes a point, and it allows for rebuttal and debate.
  I challenge you to try and debate that point with the people who make it. At the end of the conversation, at least one of you will be crazy.
  
  "Obama can go suck on my machine gun" is a crazy statement. Rather than put forward any argument, it's a personal threat against the man he disagrees with.
  So, if I said "Antipater can take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut," you'd consider that a crazy statement and threat? Because that's pretty much what Nugent did, albeit with slightly more violent rhetoric.
  
  Take a counterpoint: Charlton Heston was a firm defender of the 2nd Amendment. He spoke loudly and openly for his Constitutional rights. But he did not (afaik, at least) spew vitriol, personal attacks, or threats.
  Ironic to say the least, as Heston's famous "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" statement could actually be construed as a direct threat of violence, whereas the Nugent statement you quote is essentially his way of saying, "Mr. President, go fuck yourself."
  See, Heston was making a direct statement of violent intent based on the actions of another - i.e., if you try and take his gun away, he's going to defend his possession of it to the death. In Nugent's statement, all he said was that Obama "can suck on my machinegun," which is not a direct statement of violent intent, nor requiring any action on anyone else's part - hell, for all we know, the Nuge was referring to his own dick (this is my rifle, this is my gun...), which would make the statement more of a proposition than anything.
  
  Both Heston and Nugent held opinions that I disagree with, but I consider Nugent and not Heston to be crazy.
  Pardon me, then, if I find that an odd position to take, considering.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
10. Re:Representive Nugent? by jeffmflanagan · 2013-07-23 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  An evil wizard, obviously, but not a monstrously evil one, since it's not a Microsoft logo.
11. Re:Representive Nugent? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  Just watching you try to twist and spin in an effort to make the Nuge appear anything unlike like that limp wristed loudmouth hack that he is..
  Well, it gives plenty of insight in to why the Republican party is so laughably fucked up right now. Sure, the dems aren't great. But they're not fucking insane.
  Reality check:
  Hillary is pretty much already the next president.
  The Repubs are all fighting amongst themselves to see who can dig the deeper grave, and have no plan for the next presidential election other than to double down on the crazy and scream louder.
  How do you feel about that?
12. Re:Representive Nugent? by Antipater · 2013-07-23 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  So, if I said "Antipater can take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut," you'd consider that a crazy statement and threat?
  Um. if you told me to jump into a rolling doughnut, I might think you're crazy for different reasons.
  As for "cold dead hands" vs. "suck on my machine gun", I find your interpretation as odd as you find mine. "Cold, dead hands" is a generalized statement of what lengths Heston was willing to go to to defend his guns. "Suck on my machine gun" is a specific threat, especially given the context of a concert in which he would shoot arrows at pictures of liberal candidates. Heston also (again, afaik) never called political opponents pieces of shit or worthless bitches, or called for them to be decapitated.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
13. Re:Representive Nugent? by PraiseBob · 2013-07-23 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  I've wondered this for some time now - what, precisely, makes Ted Nugent so "crazy?"
  
  Lots of reasons, but one thing he did recently was kill 450 hogs from a helicopter, using a machine gun. The feral hogs are a menace, and there is nothing wrong with hunting, but it is a bit disturbing when somebody revels in mass slaughter, and kills hundreds of animals for personal pleasure and the joy of killing. Killing for pleasure isn't the sign of a healthy mental state.
14. Re:Representive Nugent? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  Hillary can only be president if she can keep Obama from becomng presidente para a vida.
15. Re:Representive Nugent? by h4rr4r · 2013-07-24 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  I think that might also be due is thinly veiled threats to shoot the president. I believe he was also a birther, not sure on that last one. Which all of those are crazy since his mother being his mother was never disputed and as such he was a natural born US citizen.
Easier way to find your representative's info. by digismack · 2013-07-23 08:43 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.defundthensa.com/
Site created by the newly initiated http://taskforce.is/

--
http://www.hollowdepth.com
1. Re:Easier way to find your representative's info. by phorm · 2013-07-24 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Why do we need a webpage? If they want to know how many people are against it they can just ask the NSA.
  Oh...wait...
Spying on Americans is OK with me by flyingfsck · 2013-07-23 08:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't care about the Americans. I would prefer them defund spying on the rest of the world. That will save them way more money.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
1. Re:Spying on Americans is OK with me by stenvar · 2013-07-23 09:04 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Funny, as an American, I see it the other way around. I have absolutely no problems with the US government spying on all our so-called "friends" out there, most of whom aren't lifting a finger for us, continue to abuse us, and then expect us to clean up the messes the leave. In fact, not only do I not have a problem with it, given Europe's history, I think it's the right and prudent thing to do.
2. Re:Spying on Americans is OK with me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  All countries are doing it. You're naive if you think your blob of land govt isn't actively intruding on people in the name of security.
3. Re:Spying on Americans is OK with me by cold+fjord · 2013-07-23 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  There might be a deal to be had if the world agrees to live in peace and harmony - and - to stop sending spies to the US. Let's see it demonstrated first. (Not holding breath...)
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
4. Re:Spying on Americans is OK with me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  And we as an Americans generally don't care about your opinions on our internal politics?
  just a shot.
5. Re:Spying on Americans is OK with me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  If you act like an ass, you get treated like an ass.
  Try acting civilized first.
6. Re:Spying on Americans is OK with me by cheekyjohnson · 2013-07-23 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Then maybe he thinks those countries should knock it off too?
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
7. Re:Spying on Americans is OK with me by cold+fjord · 2013-07-23 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Priceless. And this is why things will continue as they have been.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
8. Re:Spying on Americans is OK with me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  Give up on the whining about the world spying on you - it's BS. Since when does China have access to all my emails, web history, texts and everything else? Why should anyone outside of the US use your cloud services now we know it's compromised? Don't you realise that actions have consequences and there is such a thing as blowback?
  You might be fine with your bovine, supplicant acceptance of your government pulling your pants down and easing it's way in - don't expect the rest of the world to be the same.
Crowd Control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:44 · Score: 0

This is just crowd control, so from the top of my head, "the amendment that would block funding for NSA programs that collect the call records of innocent Americans", there is no way for the NSA to know beforehand if they are innocent or not. And I bet the congress/NSA will find as many loopholes as they need in said amendment or other legislation to continue to do whatever they want.
Now if you excuse me, there is a SWAT team on my front lawn, they seem to be aiming at my windoooooooooooooooooooo-
1. Re:Crowd Control by Antipater · 2013-07-23 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to execute a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order pursuant to Section 501 of FISA 1978 which does not contain the following sentence: 'This order limits the collection of any tangible things (including [metadata]) that may be authorized to be collected pursuant to this Order to those tangible things that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation described in Section 501 of FISA 1978'."
  In other words: Section 501 orders must be limited to the subject of a current investigation, or they will not receive funding. It's not about innocence, it's about being the subject of an investigation or not. No blanket orders, no three-hops rule.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
Three Cheers for Amash by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-07-23 08:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Justin Amash is just the kind of Representative that could really make this system work, if there were 430 more like him. He posts all of his votes online and explains his rationale, which is almost always concerned foremost with the legality of the proposed legislation.
For that reason, most of his amendments fail and he's usually on the losing side of popular votes. I'll be delighted if his amendment succeeds and is not subsequently removed in conference or by another amendment, but if I were a betting man, I would not bet on his effort tomorrow having any actual impact on the funding.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
1. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by Princeofcups · 2013-07-23 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  I'll be delighted if his amendment succeeds and is not subsequently removed in conference or by another amendment, but if I were a betting man, I would not bet on his effort tomorrow having any actual impact on the funding.
  An unfunded NSA just means more funding hidden under "National Security Discretionary Spending." That's how most black ops get funded. That and illegally selling drugs and guns, but the US Intelligence services would never do that. (sarcasm)
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
2. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by bluefoxlucid · 2013-07-23 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  The LEGALITY of proposed legislation?! Are you retarded? Legislation IS legality! That's what it is! It's LAWS!
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
3. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by cold+fjord · 2013-07-23 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  I would assume that is Constitutional legality.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
4. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Please. The US government doesn't need to run drugs or guns to make money. Yes, they've done it before, but not for cash. They've done it for many other, ridiculous reasons, but not cash.
  As you said, they have numerous ways to move money around, usually with the approval of some subcommittee exhibiting regulatory capture (or Stockholm syndrome) which makes it at least quasi-legal.
  We should _wish_ that the government funded black ops using such methods. For one thing, it would seriously reign in the amount of damage they could do. It's really hard to move dope, much harder than cashing a check from the Treasury. And they'd have to keep it secret, which would also require keeping the programs small and contained.
5. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by bluefoxlucid · 2013-07-23 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  I don't much care about the Constitution. Much of it provides too much freedom to the government. Much of it doesn't guarantee the freedoms people need, and provides them freedoms that are actively harmful. Much of it provides freedoms in the wrong way (patent and copyright law--no bounds, no rules, you have the freedom to lobby for eternal copyright and sue the shit out of old ladies). Much of it proscribes mechanisms that have already been subverted, such that the voice and the will and the freedom of the people is easily trampled on because all those rights don't apply if you word them in the terminology of the modern age. It's a pile of misguided trash.
  What people don't understand is that the United States was an experiment, a brand new form of government based on the ideals of great philosophers like John Locke or Voltaire. Jefferson and Franklin are often cited, but they proposed their ideals as studious scholars of Voltaire and Locke and other who preceded them. The whole thing, the US Constitution, the Federal government, the concept of a Republic, of Representative Democracy, everything, it's all a huge pre-beta alpha test. It's a first attempt. It's gone through revisions and changes, and the change control process and organizational hierarchy and everything were so wrong that it's now a steaming pile and needs to be burned down and rewritten from the ground up.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
6. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  Not in the United States of America, only in countries like the UK that believe in Parliamentary Supremacy.
  In the United States of America, we at last pretend to adhere to the idea of limited powers. That means not only are legislators limited to their enumerated powers, but even within those powers they're limited in both the means and ends under the concept of Law of the Land and Due Process, both of which have both procedural and substantive aspects in American legal philosophy going back to before the Revolution. (The UK briefly entertained the idea that "Law of the Land" and "Due Process" were fundamental limitations on sovereign power, but that didn't last long and by the 18th century was long forgotten.)
  As Daniel Webster said: "By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law, which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is, that every citizen should hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Every thing which may pass under the form of an enactment, is not, therefore, to be considered the law of the land."
  Here "general law" reflects a concept of natural rights, which is to say that most kinds of liberty cannot simply be taken away by a legislature. Rather most liberties are inherent in your person and can only be lost by some positive action done by yourself which only by the judgment of a court and your peers legitimizes their restraint.
  The irony is that conservatives, who like to talk about inherent liberties, despise the idea of "substantive due process", as it has come to be known. By eschewing substantive due process, however, they've left all individuals susceptible to tyranny by government.
7. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by cold+fjord · 2013-07-23 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  I have to disagree with you a bit. The US Constitution is government 2.x. It is production code that has had some patches applied.
  Government 1.0 didn't work out so well and had to be scrapped: See Articles of Confederation
  A further rewrite instead of patching would be risky. There is no guarantee that a rewrite would be better, and a considerable chance it would be far worse given the feckless politicians now available to perform a rewrite.
  I think the current US Constitution could be compared to Algol: Here is a language so far ahead of its time, that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors, but also on nearly all its successors. -- C. A. R. Hoare
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
8. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  You need to go read the actual constitution as a whole then.
  It doesn't guarantee people freedoms so much as limits government.
  Unfortunately, we've pushed the limits for the last 200 years to the point of ridiculousness.
  Perhaps we do need to tear up the constitution and explicitly list the freedoms of the people, but we'll also need people like those that wrote the constitution. And I don't see many, or any, of them.
9. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  I agree, people like him could make our system work. He is thus far the first and only politician I have ever felt really good about voting for.
10. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by meglon · 2013-07-23 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  You need to go read the actual constitution as a whole then.
  It doesn't guarantee people freedoms so much as limits government.
  Unfortunately, we've pushed the limits for the last 200 years to the point of ridiculousness.
  I agree... you (the AC) need to go read the constitution, because clearly you haven't.
  
  The Constitution was written to empower the federal government. It lays out broad premises for goals the federal government is supposed to work towards, then defines specific powers the different branches of the federal government has, then gives it an almost blank check to do those things. Then there's the Bill of Rights.
  
  Ignoring EVERYTHING in the Constitution and Bill of Rights except the 10th amendment is just fucking stupid.
  
  --
  Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
11. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  How about Representative Thomas Massie? He has a bachelor's in EE and a Master's in Mechanical Engineering. Both degrees from M.I.T. He was endorsed by Ron Paul during the last election.
  Also, how many congressmen can claim they competed on Junkyard Wars?
12. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-07-23 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  The LEGALITY of proposed legislation?! Are you retarded? Legislation IS legality! That's what it is! It's LAWS!
  Do you seriously not understand the hierarchy of laws in the US? Where did you go to school?
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
13. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by bluefoxlucid · 2013-07-24 01:22 · Score: 2
  
  Basically you nailed it. The powers established were not as clear as some people like to believe--not just things like the second amendment argument over the use of a comma where a semicolon belongs or the definition of 'people', but the general duties of government itself. Somehow the Constitution lays out that judges can be legally obligated to prevent jury nullification, that prosecution (state lawyers!) can create a jury of your peers by throwing out anyone that seems capable of critical thought, and that laws can be convoluted bullshit.
  Every law should have a scope statement. Treat laws like projects, handled just like projects. Start by defining the scope, explain what the law intends to accomplish. If you have a law that opens with a scope statement: "To encourage economic growth by legal facilitation of the development of clean energy technologies by regulatory measures and tax incentives," and you haul someone into court for having a 9 year old suck his dick with the only criminal offense being a clause IN THAT BILL PASSED INTO LAW that outlines sexual offenses relating to children, the courts should throw that out because no law has been broken, citing that the scope of the law does not support those clauses and that is invalid. You must write a DIFFERENT LAW that starts with the scope: "To protect children from sexual predators by instating criminal punishment for sexual contact and interaction between adults and minors."
  If we did this, every law would have a clear statement of purpose right up front. Earmarks and other bullshit added to laws for irrelevant bullshit would not be a thing. A valid legal defense to anything would be, "The law isn't supposed to be for that." It says at the top that the law is to accomplish a certain goal, and you're on trial for something that doesn't offend that goal? Well shit, that's invalid, instant acquittal.
  It could even be legally argued that, having violating a valid law, you have committed no crime because your violation does not act in opposition to the purpose outlined in the scope of the law--that you committed per-se criminal acts, but that those acts did not have an effect such as the law was instated to protect against. Copyright is a good one for this--a law to protect against the distribution of a work without the authorization of its copyright holder, so thus to protect their channel of monetary gain. As soon as some RIAA lawyer brings bullshit about copying a CD to your iPod being supposedly illegal, we raise question: Does this count as distribution? Certainly it affects their monetary gain, as they want you to buy a new copy from the Apple store; but is it DISTRIBUTION? No, of course not, fuck off.
  Distributing a file to someone who "wouldn't have bought it anyway?" That's a fine or jail time or whatever, because that's bullshit, because you're creating a good excuse that helps convince other people to "not buy music anymore anyway if I can't get it for free"--creating a detrimental mentality. As this starts to become common, people start getting it in their head that they don't have to pay for music, and then that they shouldn't, and it becomes a sort of social movement. What you're doing is detrimental.
  Distributing a copyright work that the copyright holder is no longer producing or distributing, and thus is not currently monetizing? No, you're not affecting their monetary stream. That's their fault for not meeting demand. Placeholdering it by putting the price at a ridiculous level--$200 for a DVD of The Little Mermaid or something stupid--is iffy, but would be arguable in court. Like, honestly, do you think people will buy that for $200? The courts may interpret $200 as a barrier to purchase--they may interpret that a reasonable person would be unlikely to purchase a DVD for $200 in the same way as they would be unlikely to enter into a multi-million-dollar contract with Disney to continue the manufacture and distribution of a DVD no longer in print so that they can obtain it legally.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
14. Re:Three Cheers for Amash by bluefoxlucid · 2013-07-24 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  IN THE US! Do you not understand how the US school system works?! They tried to teach us that rape is okay. In middle school. In seventh grade they tried to show us how, in Saudi, when a woman was gang raped because her husband was late on his debts, this is okay because it's just their culture and things are different there. I don't think our teacher could have been more relieved in her life than when a class of 13 year olds stood up and said, "I'm sorry, but no, that's bullshit."
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
Tough love by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:45 · Score: 1

Go take your ..."but its pointless" excuses and shove em up your ass.
Will it mater? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

At this point I'm not sure you can actually yank funds from the NSA. Their budget is secret, and they have as secret court system who's records are secret that they could use to overrule pretty much any funding provision.
The NSA has positioned itself completely out of congressional and executive oversight. It's pretty clear that they lie to both branches and get away with it, simply because they have the ability censor and withhold any documents that could prove that they're up to no good.
People get on the Govt's case (specifically the case of presidents and politicians they don't like) for supporting NSA actions.. I don't think it's quite that simple. Congress and the President get advice and information from the NSA and they depend on it for making policy decisions. The problem is the NSA could be feeding congress and the president bullshit, and we've got no way to prove that information right or wrong.
There's no accountability (God, I hate that overused word but it's appropriate in this context) and there is no oversight. There is simply no way to prove that there is or is no conflict of interest, and thus we cannot trust the NSA. (Even if it turns out all of their actions are completely justified!)
1. Re:Will it mater? by LordLimecat · 2013-07-23 09:24 · Score: 2
  
  I dont believe the FISA court has jurisdiction over the congressional budget. If congress defunds them, theyre defunded.
2. Re:Will it mater? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  How do you know? The budget is secret. There are literally less people than you can count on one hand that know the full details of the NSA's budget and the president is not among them.
  How can congress de-fund what it can't track? Say congress says "Dont spend money on X". The NSA can simply mark all documents involved secret and congress will be effectively blocked from the ability to track the de-fund.
  Now, I'm sure it's not actually this bad, but that's irrelevant. We know the consequences when there is no oversight, and no ability to stop conflict of interest. Abuse always happens when there is no one watching. Always.
3. Re:Will it mater? by rsborg · 2013-07-23 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  At this point I'm not sure you can actually yank funds from the NSA. Their budget is secret, and they have as secret court system who's records are secret that they could use to overrule pretty much any funding provision.
  The NSA has positioned itself completely out of congressional and executive oversight. [snip]
  Wait, isn't the NSA (and other three-letter alphabet soup of organizations) part of the executive branch anyway? Doesn't the POTUS have a say as to what's going on?
  Perhaps the problem isn't that they're out of oversight - it's that they've completely corrupted it - spying on some companies (foriegn and domestic) to help their competitors who play ball - doing the same for Congress critters, and I bet they're not above threatening the POTUS himself if the soft-intimidation doesn't work (remember the outing of the MARINE1's specs? [1] ) ... hey a sitting President has been assassinated before - and we have no idea who did it. Surprised it took The agencies chartered with his protection were "above reproach" of course.
  We have a shell of democracy over a seething cesspit of crony capitalism, backstabbing and all the dirty things we claim only happens in "corrupt 3rd world toilets".
  [1] http://www.dailytech.com/Defense+Contractor+Leaks+Obamas+Presidential+Helicopter+Plans+to+Iran/article14446.htm
  
  --
  Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
4. Re:Will it mater? by tukang · 2013-07-23 10:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The NSA called an emergency private briefing to lobby the house against the amendment, so maybe it does matter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/23/keith-alexander-justin-amash_n_3639329.html
5. Re:Will it mater? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, of course. This sort of stuff is implied. The NSA isn't going to demand a big budget and secrecy to go around playing spy games and protecting freedom. It's to protect the interests and pocketbooks of involved parties. A story as old as the concept of government itself.
  The problem will solve itself if the free flow of information is restored. End the "States Secrets" provision. End the secret courts. End the gag orders. Restore the authority of the legitimate judicial branch.
  I don't give a wet fart if our dirty dealings are outed to the public and the international community. The damage will be much worse if we continue on our current path.
6. Re:Will it mater? by LordLimecat · 2013-07-23 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  The NSA can simply mark all documents involved secret and congress will be effectively blocked from the ability to track the de-fund.
  That is incorrect. Im fairly certain that congress can compel basically anyone they want to testify, even if it has to be in a closed session.
  As dysfunctional as they are, a united congress is the most powerful entity in the US. The president's "power" is that he isnt divided; however he cannot compel anyone to testify, control budgets, or change laws.
7. Re:Will it mater? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  That is incorrect. Im fairly certain that congress can compel basically anyone they want to testify, even if it has to be in a closed session.
  Executive privilege. Ask Eric Holder about it.
Totally not monitoring those calls. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 08:51 · Score: 2, Funny

We totally aren't tracking who calls their congressman to express support for the bill. Pinkie swear.
Stupid by Tim12s · 2013-07-23 08:53 · Score: 1

This is stupid ... at this rate only the pirates will have guns (big data analytics).
People should be advocating better oversight and more direct accountability instead of tearing down the walls of Rome.
No, somehow - I smell bullshit by argoff · 2013-07-23 08:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'll believe it when the NSA is actually defunded.
The more cynical side of me says this is bullshit politics as usual.
Here's what's really going to happen: the congressman is going to go to the NSA leadership, and say "look, I have hundreds and thousands of constituents who want to shut you down, but if you let me spy on my political opponents, and listen in on their calls, and help me sabotage them, then I can justify and risk continuance of your funding"
The more we petition them, the more they will be able to use shutting them down as a threat to get more political power that is turned against us. I predict it will be a cold day in hell before political leaders in DC give up that kind of power to spy on and blackmail people.
1. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by boorack · 2013-07-23 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  Political kabuki theatre aside, I don't think congressmen are in position to negotiate any deal with NSA. My suspicion is that NSA tightly holds most, if not all congressmen by the balls. With amounts of data they've collected, they can blackmail just about any politician into submission. Congress will propably vote exactly what NSA wants. Face it, folks. There is no functioning democracy in the US - just as one ex-Presidedent told us. Security aparatchics have all the power - just like in old communist countries or banana republics.
  Yet everyone should have hope and avoid apathy. My hope is that I'm wrong and Congress will do The Right Thing tomorrow ...
2. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by iggymanz · 2013-07-23 09:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  why defund the NSA, the NSA actually has a legimate mission which of course has nothing to do with spying on U.S. citizens. The job it is supposed to be doing is securing the communications of the U.S. government
3. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by WaffleMonster · 2013-07-23 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  why defund the NSA, the NSA actually has a legimate mission which of course has nothing to do with spying on U.S. citizens. The job it is supposed to be doing is securing the communications of the U.S. government
  There are two types of people in this world. Those who RTFA'd and those who did not.
4. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  I'll believe it when the NSA is actually defunded.
  The only way you could ever be sure that they aren't just doing the same thing under a different name and with a different secret legal rationale would be if there is a second coming of Snowden. Perhaps in 100 years your grandkids will get to know since at that point it won't matter.
5. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by rsborg · 2013-07-23 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  why defund the NSA, the NSA actually has a legimate mission which of course has nothing to do with spying on U.S. citizens. The job it is supposed to be doing is securing the communications of the U.S. government
  And if you take all the government employees, contractors and the like, and go 3 hops, you pretty much have the whole of the USA.
  http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/07/18/2023207/nsa-admits-searching-3-hops-from-suspects
  
  --
  Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
6. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by turp182 · 2013-07-23 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Read the bill amendment, which is quite short.. It's worded to limit FISA information collection specifically, things like phone numbers called, incoming call numbers, among others.
  It would be attached to a DOD appropriations bill (HR 2397).
  I called my representative's office. You should too.
  I don't care if they tracked my call (which was routed through the central office then to my reps office). Keep their lines ringing off the hook people!
  
  --
  BlameBillCosby.com
7. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by iggymanz · 2013-07-23 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  just as there are two types of people, those who read the comment to which I was replying, and those like you who do not and spout irrelevant viewpoints
8. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by dkleinsc · 2013-07-23 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  My suspicion is that NSA tightly holds most, if not all congressmen by the balls.
  Case in point: Anthony Weiner and the famous picture of his junk. 3 interesting points about that: (1) When the scandal first broke, Weiner claimed that his phone was hacked. (2) Jon Stewart, who knew Weiner when they were younger, thought that the pictures didn't match Weiner's weiner. (3) The photos in question don't show his face or any other identifying characteristics.
  I'm not a political supporter of Weiner, but it sure looks like he was set up by somebody.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
9. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by cheekyjohnson · 2013-07-23 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Because they're almost useless. I highly doubt we actually need many of these warmongering organizations, or at the very least, they don't need nearly as much money as they're getting now.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
10. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-07-23 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  why defund the NSA, the NSA actually has a legimate mission
  The ammendment is about defunding the part that spies on americans, not the entire organization. It is an achievable and reasonable goal.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
11. Re:No, somehow - I smell bullshit by cold+fjord · 2013-07-23 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a political supporter of Weiner, but it sure looks like he was set up by somebody.
  Yes, he was set up by Anthony Weiner. Telling not just lies, but stupid lies didn't help.
  Rep. Anthony Weiner: 'The Picture Was of Me and I Sent It'
  And what's better, he has been caught again doing the same sort of stupid stuff.
  Anthony Weiner admits to sending more lewd images, texts but vows to stay in mayor's race
  There is something wrong with him.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Defund NSA Domestic Spying Tomorrow by Alouster · 2013-07-23 09:00 · Score: 1

Sounds good; If it hadn't already been funded, transferred, and stabbed into the heart of the nation, forever transplanted and never to be removed. However, Congress somehow always feels that these types of charades appease the general public and lull them into feeling that the intrusions are really not there, and therefor no do exist. Meanwhile, the general public's loss of privacy, diminishing incomes, devaluating dollars, and loss of freedom marches steadfastly forward. While the stooges stay indefatigably glued to CNN to see who appears to win or loose. This issue is already lost long long ago regardless of the outcome. This is simply for entertainment, brain washing, and profit. Nothing more, nothing less. Now stare back into the whirling spiral and go back to sleep.... Burning Questions: How can a new law be written in such a way that it would be illegal not to be in possession of at least one full pint of Mr. Clean when in public place? How will this be enforced? Who would bear the financial burden of enforcement? Who would subsidize this, as Procter and Gamble already sacrifices some much for the nation as it is, and simply cannot bear these types of burdens any longer on their own?
To what? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:04 · Score: 0

My favorite bit of the summary is where it tell us what this is an amendment to.
1. Re:To what? by Antipater · 2013-07-23 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  The Defense Appropriations Bill for 2014, aka H.R.2397. It's the Defense Department's budget.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
Tomorrow's headline: by rallytales · 2013-07-23 09:08 · Score: 1

"Congress cuts NSA spending. NSA submits new purchase request for $500 toilet rolls and $1,000 propelling pencils." ;)
Just wrote my rep... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:08 · Score: 0

Why: Pretty SIMPLE -> http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4003751&cid=44356985
* 1st, I saw protesters get f'd over - then, the abuse of the IRS targetting political opponents (both of which are WRONG as wrong gets), but then I saw how Gen. Keith Alexander & Mr. James Clapper outright LIED saying they were NOT intercepting communique data of US citizens (especially since the NSA is or WAS not permitted to do so to native US citizenry - sure, "but it's LEGAL" yea, ok - changing the rules, subverting constitutional rights & such is WRONG too - up there with "hate speech" b.s. too - if you say something, it has every RIGHT to be said, but it's up to YOU to listen or not, but it is STILL a right).
Why's it bug me so much? Well... I was involved in VERY SIMILAR prototype work for a division of McAfee/Intel circa 2000-2001 using Intel IXP 1200 chips for similar work, & yes, I know how it is done (directed multigraph discrete math theory work)...
In fact, & you all can ask him: I explained this + exactly how it works, to Hairyfeet (a member here) via email in fact way, Way, WAY before this all came out in fact... & yes, folks: IT IS SPYING!
Now, I have nothing against men who probably go in with the right idea & honorable intentions... problem is, as I said in the link I posted earlier above? Is that they are JUST MEN, & subject to "Absolute Power Corrupting Absolutely"... & I suspect THAT is what most folks don't like about it, or trust (especially after the IRS fiasco - hell, the head of it didn't even LOSE HER JOB for Pete's sake!).
APK
P.S.=> I know 1 thing - were I to bullshit a court, much less the Congress/house/senate? I'd be in jail... nobody is though, & that makes ME say "WTF!"... rules, they are for everyone - perhaps MORESO for those enforcing said rules/laws, & they? They HAVE to be "better than" their opponents, & yes, that means morally, & playing the game STRAIGHT UP imo, not lowering themselves to their opponents own "low ground"... you start doing that? Then other rules/law breaking starts!
... apk
1. Re:Just wrote my rep... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  Shoot, APK wrote his congressman. You've probably got that poor guy trying to figure out what a hosts file is. He wont have time to parse letters from people that don't fill up their stuff with all of the weird ascii symbols they can find.
Congress remembers Putin ex-head of KGB by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-07-23 09:09 · Score: 1, Redundant

And that happened for a reason. Homeland security and the NSA may not run the country today, but I wouldn't count on tomorrow. The actual staff at the NSA tend to be decent and patriotic. The guys at the top.... are like guys at the top anywhere.
In soviet America, Homeland secures you.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
What is meant by tangible? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:13 · Score: 0

I don't understand the meaning of tangible as used in this amendment. Tangible is something physical to my mind. It looks like something easily worked around.
1. Re:What is meant by tangible? by Antipater · 2013-07-23 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tangible+property
  Interesting point. No definition of either "tangible" or "intangible" I can find mentions phone records. However, as the amendment itself specifically mentions phone numbers as included, I think it'd be decently tough to work around.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
It's a simple freaking call by sl4shd0rk · 2013-07-23 09:17 · Score: 2

Pretend you're making a crank call but instead of the usual 12-year old stint, just say "I'm calling to voice my support for the Amash amendment. I want the funding stripped from the NSA and given to NASA instead". It will take all of 10 minutes and even if your rep is a douche, at least you don't have to be.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
1. Re:It's a simple freaking call by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  I just realized that I'm a citizen now (as of a few months ago) and I can now voice my opinion on these matters. It's too late at night to make this call but I think that now that I have the power to help bicker at people in the office, I might as well. Oh hey, someone's at the door right now. I wonder who that could be? It sounds like a girl scout? But her voice sounds kind of older... Hmm... I'll go check it out.
2. Re:It's a simple freaking call by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 18:22 · Score: 0
  
  woot! thank you for voting to fund my orbital rehire :')
This will totally work by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:18 · Score: 0

Because as history has shown time and time again, US presidents show great deference and respect for the authority of the US congress and presidents will never subvert congress's will by finding "unique funding alternatives" when faced with such decisive legislative action...
You can't stop the NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:19 · Score: 0

They have alternate methods of funding and powerful friends in the federal government. The best Congress could do is send them back underground.
McClintock (R-CA) by mspohr · 2013-07-23 09:21 · Score: 1

My congressman is McClintock who is a libertarian type in a very conservative (mostly ignorant, rural) area of California.
I agree with him on just about nothing except this one issue.
I call him (always get some office drone who doesn't know anything) often about lots of stuff even though I know he will ignore me.
I called him about this issue (where I know he is against NSA spying) and the office drone as usual said he didn't know how McClintock would vote.
We'll see if he buckles under to the Republican leadership or if he votes for the amendment.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Voting on amendment to defund the NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:22 · Score: 0

"That amendment, championed by Rep. Nugent, would not alter in any way the government's use of Section 215 to obtain bulk communications records on millions of Americans. EFF is urging Representatives to oppose the Nugent Amendment."
And that is my rep. here in this county Im in. Hence is why I no longer even bother with EFF anymore, along with a few other groups to that extent. Thank gawd I deleted my gmail accounts, so now I never have to look at another email from Nugent that says "like me on facebook". NO. I never liked you to begin with, and fuck you facebook. Its nice alot of these groups like EFF direct you to your representatives for your county, but when you live in a state run by the very people you are fighting against, complaining to the very people that support such draconian practices does not a bit of good.
1. Re:Voting on amendment to defund the NSA by idunham · 2013-07-23 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Looking at Nugent's proposal:
  
  At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
  following:
  SEC. ll. None of funds made available by this Act
  may be used by the National Security Agency to--
  (1) conduct an acquisition pursuant to section
  702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
  1978 for the purpose of targeting a United States
  person; or
  (2) acquire, monitor, or store the contents (as
  such term is defined in section 2510(8) of title 18,
  United States Code) of any electronic communication
  of a United States person from a provider of
  electronic communication services to the public pursuant
  to section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
  Would someone mind explaining where the hole is?
  Oh. Nevermind, it's "(8) âoecontentsâ, when used with respect to any wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication;"
  In other words, the subject line in an email is part of the contents-but not the fact that you emailed or called So-and-So.
Then we know by no-body · 2013-07-23 09:35 · Score: 1

who is on which side - any optimists?

That system is so screwed up, it's unbelievable!!!
good luck by Xicor · 2013-07-23 09:41 · Score: 1

lets all hope it succeeds. sadly though it is nearly impossible to pass an ammendment
If only there was... by Bartles · 2013-07-23 09:43 · Score: 4, Funny

...one man in charge, that could issue an order halting the controversial practices of the NSA.
1. Re:If only there was... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  ...one man in charge, that could issue an order halting the controversial practices of the NSA.
  Brilliant!!!
It's about control. by Tiger+Smile · 2013-07-23 09:51 · Score: 1

Aaron Swartz when talking about the defeat of SOPA clearly pointed out that Congress is about control. They will not give up invading people's rights. Somehow we do not living exactly in a representative democracy. Unless we are totally paranoid self hating prison guards, this is not a government for an by the people.

--
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Just called by turp182 · 2013-07-23 09:53 · Score: 1

Got my reps office (Wm. Lacy Clay, 1st District, MO) and asked that he vote for the defunding of domestic surveillance tomorrow.
We shall see how it goes.

--
BlameBillCosby.com
+1 by Curunir_wolf · 2013-07-23 09:54 · Score: 1

+1

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
1. Re:+1 by Tiger+Smile · 2013-07-23 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Crack Pot? Are you Link? Did you find a gem?
  
  --
  -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Next best thing... by CaptainLard · 2013-07-23 10:05 · Score: 1

I called my representative Jared Polis to tell him I support this and not only did a real person answer right away, he informed me that Polis is a co sponsor, which I'd have known if I'd read the whole article...

If you're keeping score, congress just told me to RTFA! This has to be a good thing right?!
Me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:06 · Score: 0

TL;DR. Called.
For PA, they said they are getting phone calls all day about this.
You never know what you can be done till you try. by dweller_below · 2013-07-23 10:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

My representatives surprised me. I am in Utah. I figured that there was little point in complaining about NSA abuses. But, I couldn't live with myself if I did nothing. So I mailed my 2 Senators and my Representative. Hatch responded with the expected: "Sit down and shutup." But Senator Lee responded by saying that he agreed the NSA had greatly exceeded Constitutional authority. He said he would try to address the problem.
So, today, I called Representative Bishop and urged him to support the Amash amendment.
Who knows? If a Utah Senator can acknowledge there is a problem, maybe there is some hope.
I made my letter available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bd9crUNvPF71alxCVKcUmVarn80aJQJmZe4FLyzKWXU Feel free to mine it for suggestions for your own action.
it was those criminals in congress by FudRucker · 2013-07-23 10:21 · Score: 2

that financed the NSA in the first place, dont expect them to actually defund them, if anything they just defund it on the surface and re-route the funds through the Dept of Defense where all the hidden funding goes through already

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Privatization Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:24 · Score: 0

Great! Now the NSA won't just collect the data, it will have to start selling it to pay for it's programs... and now I'm on a list.
Laughable by hackus · 2013-07-23 10:59 · Score: 2

Let me get this straight.
The same people who have destroyed the republic that once existed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights are going to defund drones?
If you believe that they actually do, I have some swamp land in Florida that is really beach front property you should buy.
No way in hell they are going to do that, even if the press says they do, they won't secretly.
The cache of industrial and financial information the NSA/CIA and its crony congressman get ALONE is far to valuable to just shut off.
-Hack

--
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
1. Re:Laughable by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  If the information is so valuable then why do they need funds to run the programs?
2. Re:Laughable by toddbanng · 2013-07-24 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Congress is immoral - and mostly the GOP and TeaParty nuts causing ignoramous ideas such as this... they are, by their own definition - a terrorist organization
Yep, that ship sailed in 2001 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 11:18 · Score: 0

PATRIOT act... you have no rights unless we say you do.
it's an off-year in congress by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 11:30 · Score: 0

next election is more than 15 months away.. no chance in hell congress will vote for something the PEOPLE demand... even less of a chance of a presidential signature if it did happen to pass both houses.
Good Post by rmdingler · 2013-07-23 12:40 · Score: 1

I am of the rather cynical view that the Constitution is a thorn in the side of our fearless leaders, and yet a thorn we must endeavor to keep embedded. Regarding the story, whether or not the surveillance of American citizens is done on the above-board budget is probably irrelevant. If this surveilled intelligence has helped its gatherers in even an ephemeral way, the Pentagon's Black Budget is larger than around 120 nations' GDP. Tweaking H.R.Haldeman, the toothpaste is out of the tube and they don't want to get it back in.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:Good Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  Not so much cynical as... well, true, isn't it? Here in Japan, there's talk of rewriting a section of the Constitution that makes it difficult for the government to rewrite the Constitution, which even constitution experts are deriding as a move by the majority party to be able to hold the Constitution over our heads, rather than the people holding it over the government's. Constitutions, as an all-encompassing name for the similar sets of laws in many countries' legal systems, are supposed to limit the government's power over doing whatever the hell they want - by definition, yes, it's a thorn in their side. The only problem the constitutions in our respective countries is facing is complete apathetic lack of interest in the powers the government is amassing.
"Contents" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 13:07 · Score: 0

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2510
"(8) “contents”, when used with respect to any wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication; "
History professors & mortal men... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 13:23 · Score: 0

OK - I am in a good mood, & must admit that was 1/2 way funny!
* :)
(Even IF it came @ my 'expernse', somewhat...)
APK
P.S.=> "Onwards & upwards" - the only reason I did it was again, "absolute power corrupting absolutely" (because mere mortal men are PRONE to that, myself included, admittedly) & per my subject-line above because of a history prof. I had in college, smart man, who left a real impression on me (even though I felt then, stupidly, that history was a waste of my time) who said:
"Totalitarian regimes start with 'little laws' passing 1st, taking an inch, reaching for a mile - next thing you know? You have Communist Russia/Nazi Germany USA: DO NOT THINK IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!"...
... apk
defund? by manu0601 · 2013-07-23 13:28 · Score: 1

How congress can make sure the defund is really implemented? The problem with NSA spying is that it is opaque. How can it be checked that some money is used to spy on an innocent or a suspect person?
Re:You never know what you can be done till you tr by antdude · 2013-07-23 14:12 · Score: 2

"He said he would try to address the problem." TRY. He didn't say he will do it. :/

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
We will appease the natives buy stopping the least by ralphaostrander · 2013-07-23 14:18 · Score: 1

intrusive NSA thing. While they watch you type your /. post.
I called my congressman, and he said, quote... by dunnomattic · 2013-07-23 14:27 · Score: 2

"Who did you hear about this from? We've been getting a lot of calls about this."
--from a staffer in Frank Wolf's DC office, 10th district of Virginia around 5PM this evening
I asked the staffer if he was aware of the Rep. Wolf's position on the matter. He wasn't; I mentioned my concern and encouraged Wolf's support for the amendment that limits funding to the NSA's effort to broadly sweep up call data for domestic surveillance. When he asked who was driving this effort, I didn't say slashdot, but said the topic had been in the news with a big lawsuit being brought against the NSA by the EFF.
Apparently, all the IT folks up here in northern VA got the memo and called.

--
...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.
defund by Bananatree3 · 2013-07-23 14:40 · Score: 1

that works usually to get stuff out of effect
Re:You never know what you can be done till you tr by cold+fjord · 2013-07-23 16:19 · Score: 1

I don't necessarily agree with your position, but you did the right thing. That is exactly the sort of thing that citizens should be doing. My metaphorical hat is off to you. I hope many follow your example. (Even if I hope at least some of them agree more with me.)
Well done.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Posse Commitatus by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 17:13 · Score: 0

WTF are DoD monies spying on Americans? That's counter Posse Commitatus.
Flies + shit = maggots
In or out, NSA: in or f'in out. And quit sticking your nose up everybody's asses you dogs.
Only not watch the Americans, LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 20:02 · Score: 0

This is how it works:
The NSA is not watching the US population, but everyone else.
The MI5 is not watching the UK population, but everyone else.
Then NSA send the MI5 all data they have about UK people
The MI5 sends all data about US people they have.
And this goes on between all secret services of all countries.
So stopping NSA to watch Americans is silly. We have to get a worldwide ban on general warrantless surveillance.
Divide and conquer by ElusiveJoe · 2013-07-24 00:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you're a foreigner being spied on by the NSA, take it up with your own government. If YOUR government won't protect you from OUR government, consider getting a new government.
And that, girls and boys, is the reason why very small groups of people (aka governments) owns vast groups of people (aka citizens). Being selfish and ignorant makes you stupid, weak and easy to break into submission.
They call this... by poofmeisterp · 2013-07-24 01:26 · Score: 1

Distraction.
Domestic NSA spying is now cut off! Yaay!
(while at the same time, another government agency is hush-hush granted 10 times the cut amount for more quiet domestic spying)
Revolt by phorm · 2013-07-24 03:00 · Score: 1

Except around here these days it's more like
Government gains too much power, becomes oppressive. People rev... oh wait the next season of Big Brother is on, gotta go guys.
Wonderful by toddbanng · 2013-07-24 04:30 · Score: 0

So now when the analyst hears traffic that Joe H. in Evansville, IN is plotting and actively planning an attack on US soil - they will not be permitted to do anything about, if indeed they can have access to that info at all? Nor will they have any capability to alert anyone - instantly throwing us back to Sept 10, 2001. Congress needs to be fired in 2014 because for the last 2.5 years they have failed at every turn in being functional or helpful... and contradict themselves at every turn. The GOP in Congress and TeaParty whack-jobs simply need to be removed, as they're clueless to anything but their own ideology, and need to head back to back-water "name their town" and re-join their cult and place themselves out of societies way.
Disappointed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 11:15 · Score: 0

Now the only question I have is how my representative voted on it. I voted for him so many times I lost count, and I only asked his office for this one thing. How he voted determines whether I vote for him again or not.
Vote results by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 12:33 · Score: 0

For those of you interested, here are the vote results:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml
Voted Down by ecocd · 2013-07-24 13:20 · Score: 1

For what it's worth, it was a narrow defeat 217-205 with neither party voting in lockstep. It was close enough to make the White House sweat. If the point was to start a conversation, it looks like Rep. Amash got their attention. I'm not sure whether the American public will ever get to hear more about the program, but the administration is going to have to give a lot more information to a wider array of congressmen if they want their support. I have a feeling there were a lot of Democrats making a deal that they would vote with the White House this time in exchange for more information on the program before it comes up for a vote again. It's going to be a pretty unpopular vote to have on their record come election time. Amash clearly has a good PR bone here and he isn't going to just let this die quielty now.
NOES by colsandurz45 · 2013-07-24 13:50 · Score: 1

Here's a list of congressmen to vote out:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml#N