Slashdot Mirror


Senators Push To Preserve NSA Phone Surveillance

cold fjord writes "The New York times reports that the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Vice Chairman, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), are moving a bill forward that would 'change but preserve' the controversial NSA phone log program. Senator Feinstein believes the program is legal, but wants to improve public confidence. The bill would reduce the time the logs could be kept, require public reports on how often it is used, and require FISA court review of the numbers searched. The bill would require Senate confirmation of the NSA director. It would also give the NSA a one week grace period in applying for permission from a court to continue surveillance of someone that travels from overseas to the United States. The situation created by someone traveling from overseas to the United States has been the source of the largest number of incidents in the US in which NSA's surveillance rules were not properly complied with. The rival bill offered by Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Udall (D-CO) which imposes tougher restrictions is considered less likely to pass."

24 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Fire them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're not representing the people and therefore undemocratic. Fire them.

    1. Re:Fire them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would. The problem is I don't think they'll listen to me and I'd probably be arrested if I call the cops to try and forcefully remove them from office.

    2. Re:Fire them. by PRMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you kidding? The idiots in northern California will vote for her again because "she's a Democrat". It doesn't matter what she does, she'll get reelected. They voted for Jerry Brown for governor and he already bankrupted California twice in the past.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:Fire them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Saxby Chambliss has already announced his retirement. Thus, he is currently free to leverage his seniority and lame-duckness to act against the wishes of his constituents.

    4. Re:Fire them. by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Prove that we didn't elect them. Prove that the elections are all rigged. Then I would support, even join such a move.

      Until then baring arms against elected officials would just be a subversion of democracy. Who would take their place? Those who fight against the people's will by removing their chosen leaders? That would lead to tyrany for sure.

      Until then all there is to do is try to vote for the best lizards we can with lots of facepalms over who our felow citizens keep chosing.

    5. Re:Fire them. by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually I would submit the election system is so terribly set up that it barely deserves to be called one. We have a great system, for a world where it takes weeks to get information a few hundred miles, and the number of states and subjects are a fraction of what we have today.

      What has happened, with the expansion of territory, increase in population, and indroduction of mass media, is that representation has become an utter joke.

      It comes down to issues as basic as the voting system itself. A single non-transferable vote system creates the situation where a two party stranglehold is inevitable. Two parties are barely good enough for a small community. In fact the very structure of the non-ranked vote, gives more power to the parties.

      For the most part Democrats are not people who believe in the Democrat platform, shit, most have never read it and few know more than a few of its more basic points. They are, the people afraid of the basic points the republicans make. The republicans, are basically the same, just with some of the issues switched.

      In a way, this works, if any party becomes too powerful, they stumble and fall as their member constituencies begin fighting with each other. However it means, nobody actually has an agenda that can be taken seriously because neither party has a real coalition, until they are behind and able to rally their members together out of fear of the other party.

      This is a democracy in name only, its really become a sham (it is debatable whether it always was, but, it came about in a context where it made more sense than it does today).

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  2. As a world traveler by canadiannomad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a world traveler who is actively seeing many places, cultures and things let me tell you about my perspective... Nah, I better keep my mouth shut.

    Also who trusts FISA again??? The secret court that declares itself legal... I think I did that in the garage when I was 5.

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    1. Re:As a world traveler by abhisri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is the point of passing any bills or laws related to this? It is not like NSA is going to obey the laws in first place, which is the actual problem.

      If your government refuses to respect the very constitution that is supposed to give it its power in the first place, and do unconstitutional acts, your government's behavior is not so different from that of Pakistan's previous president Musharraf's imprisonment of all his political rivals during election and then declaring himself to be the "democratically elected representative".

      In the meanwhile, Americans continue debating between "republicans" v/s "democrats" and "Bush" v/s "Obama".

    2. Re:As a world traveler by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not so much the guns. I live in Costa Rica - police with automatic weapons is the norm. You go anywhere important (bank, jewelry store, etc) and there's always a guard with a shotgun. So like I say, it wasn't the weapons per se, it was the obvious tactical deployment forcing all passengers to walk very close to the officers and the dog, while receiving dirty looks from said officers. This was "in your face" policing. I would think it's ok for the police to make me feel like a criminal if I've done something, but I haven't done anything. Still I felt as if at any moment they were going to grab me. And obviously that was the intent - to intimidate the passengers: "You're in America now and we won't take any shit from you". Yeah well, keep your police state.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:As a world traveler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the FISA Court is not lawful and no lawful court works the way it does.

    4. Re:As a world traveler by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the court is constitutional

      How can a court that doesn't have any oversight, including the supreme court, be constitutional?

      Just because congress passed a law creating FISA doesn't make it constitutional.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  3. Damn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would someone fucking put Feinstein out of my misery already.

  4. "Legal" does not equal "ethical" or "right" by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do so few people understand that? The surveillance in totalitarian regimes is typically "legal", something being "legal" does not mean anything.

    You can in fact establish a totalitarian regime in an entirely legal way almost everywhere. Step one is to scare the population into irrationality ("terrorism" and other specters work nicely). Then you manipulate the supreme court (if you have one) into doing more and more bizarre interpretations of the constitution (if you have one). This has been going on for some while in the US. And finally you drop all pretense and make laws against "crimes" that place more and more people into that class (victim-less crimes work well here), so you can get rid easily of anybody you do not like. Allowing the use of random finds in searches, even when the original reason for the search turns out to be bogus (a truly despicable practice) helps, because everybody has something illegal that can be found with over-broad criminalization. Then scare the targets into a deal, so no judge or jury gets to examine the accusations.

    See, easy. And well under way in the US.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:"Legal" does not equal "ethical" or "right" by TheP4st · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany.

      Unfortunately there is a billion dollar industry that do want war and combined with the all too prevalent revolving door politics little will change for the better anytime soon.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    2. Re:"Legal" does not equal "ethical" or "right" by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me add to this that the problem is not that the US is super-evil. Everybody knows that the US is not significantly more or less evil than most other civilized countries, just a bit more powerful. The problem is that when the mechanisms for abuse are in place, they will invariably be used for something evil one day or another. Perhaps not now, but who knows what happens in 20 years?

    3. Re:"Legal" does not equal "ethical" or "right" by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're ever in a jury where the NSA is presenting data against someone, find that person innocent?

      Err, what makes you think that will ever happen? The data from the NSA isn't going to be used for those silly trials (where a jury might find somebody not guilty). Instead, we'll use the data to put people on secret lists that will ensure that it is extremely unpleasant for them to:
      - Get on a commercial plane.
      - Cross an international border.
      - Deposit money into a bank account.
      - Get or keep a job.
      - Vote.
      - Rent a car.
      - Take out a bank loan.
      - Enter a court of law, regardless of the reason.
      - Own a smartphone, laptop, or other portable electronic device.
      Oh, and if you're in a foreign country that nobody important cares about, like Yemen, then they may just decide to kill you and your family with a drone and be done with it.

      Most of these kinds of steps have already been taken against people who the national security state has decided are troublemakers.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:"Legal" does not equal "ethical" or "right" by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      billion dollar industry?

      You're thinking too small.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  5. Still not learned from history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America has a horrible habit of not learning from history. It is worrying to see obvious extremists like Feinstein, pushing through viciously totalitarian legislation of this type.
    Look at the German experience of these type of laws - first with the Nazis, then with the Stasi police state.
    What has been happening in America is FAR more reaching than either the Nazi or Stasi surveillance ever was. The American people need to act now, to move towards a democratic path. It will be a difficult journey after such a long period of ruthless totalitarian government. It will require rebuilding of all the fundemental institutions of the state, to be free of corruption, and to be free of corporate interference. I hope for the sake of ordinary americans, that they can cast aside the corrupt regime, before it is too late, and their country implodes.

    1. Re: Still not learned from history by getuid() · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nah, too early. Most people, out of lack of personal experience, aren't yet terrified enough of a totalitatian govt. thus don't quite know why and how to love a proper functioning democracy.

      Wait another decade or so, it will be easier then. More bloody, and will require more work, but there'l be more hands to help.

      Cheers

  6. That's going to work by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bill would reduce the time the logs could be kept, require public reports on how often it is used, and require FISA court review of the numbers searched.

    Riiiight. The organization that lied to Congress, lied to the FISA Kangaroo Court, and then lied to the public when they got caught is going to suddenly be cowed by tweaking the law.

    They should call this the Whitewash Amendment.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  7. So what the NSA got on these senators? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that their behaviour is grossly inconsistent with their other political views, one is forced to the conclusion that the NSA has got some means of coercion to get them to propose this.

  8. Bizness as usual by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Let's say we did something so that we can start pretending things are different."

  9. Re:FISA most be abolished by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The government would rather abolish the FOIA. It incites discontent with its authority.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  10. Carlin - half of them are dumber by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It DOES reflect the majority of voters. The majority voted for Feinstein and all the rest. I've spoken to several people who think the NSA thing isn't a problem. They grow more concerned when I provide them some information about what the NSA has been doing.

    It's not that the majority wants to be spied on, it's that the majority is watching Dancing With the Stars. In some surveys, most people didn't know who the vice president was. Of those who DID know the vice president's name, around 40% say they get their news from Comedy Central.

    So about 15% of Americans read or watch news programs (South Park and Daily Show aren't news).

    The majority doesn't know what NSA stands for, and the nature of that majority is reflected in the government's actions.