Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Even the Author of the Patriot Act Is Trying To Stop the NSA

Posted by Unknown on from the clinging-to-power dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner will introduce an anti-NSA bill tomorrow in the House, and if it makes its winding way to becoming law, it will be a big step towards curtailing the NSA's bulk metadata collection. Wisconsin Rep. Sensenbrenner, along with 60 co-sponsors, aims to amend one section of the Patriot Act, Section 215, in a bill known as the United and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet Collection, and Online Monitoring Act — also known by its less-clunky acronym version, the USA Freedom Act."

58 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. And now they get credit for saving us by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just like CEOs who take the credit for the $ savings of outsourcing, then take the credit for improved service by bringing the work back, but somehow keep their jobs. Or the dorks who think centralizing IT assets (hello Mainframe) is good, then later decide that distributing all the computing (hello desktop) is good, claiming credit for being revolutionary twice.

    Do people really fall for this?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do people really fall for this?

      To the ones pulling the strings, such an incredibly short memory and inability to draw contrasts is not a bug, it's a strongly encouraged feature.

      Most people are passive mentally and believe thinking to be a burden that should be avoided whenever possible. Therefore, if the TV news doesn't specifically highlight something in a nice ADD-friendly 10-second sound bite, it won't be widely known. If this sounds incredible or alien to you, it's because the Slashdot crowd doesn't represent mainstream America (though the way people keep arguing from emotion, that's changing).

      There is no one in power who wants a well-informed, smart, savvy, thinking population that has a long memory, is familiar with dialectic and able to easily perform critical thinking. No one running the show wants that at all. It's no surprise that within the little feudal system of a corporation that no one is forced to do business with, this goes unnoticed. It goes unnoticed with huge political changes that affect daily life.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was a time when mainframes were better, then there was a time when desktops were better, then there was a time when thin clients were better, then there was a time when BYOD was better... I'm not sure what you point is there other than "shit changes"

    3. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by artor3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Would you prefer that they stick to their guns and continue doing harm? I prefer politicians who are willing to change their minds based on public opinion, thank you very much.

      I don't even care if he really believes in what he's doing now. Maybe he still thinks the Patriot Act is good and he's only doing this to attract more votes. But what difference does it make?

    4. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by s.petry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The point was that the systems were only invented once, but every CEO (and some politicians) have claimed to have invent these concepts over and over again, and people are stupid enough to believe them.

      Mainframe = many users and departments on a system. Great invention

      Desktop = single user system. Great invention

      Grid/Cloud = many users and departments on a system. Not a new invention at all, it's using various components to mimic the Mainframe. The "system" is using different components and Operating systems now vs. then, but they are still trying to mimic the original system.

      BYOD fits into either the "single device" or "connected to something" architecture just like today's PC.

      If you try and nitpick the system, you will of course miss the analogy. The analogy is not about what is better, it's that it's not new.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The utopian future, where users won't be crying "fix my random device you have never seen one of before, I need it to work" to IT?

      Jesus. Don't blame the users. The CEOs are 98% at fault.

      When they don't have to buy desktops or cell phones, they count that as a plus. Sure, it shifts a huge burden to IT, but don't forget who is really the driving force behind this.

      I have a different take on it: if management wants to save money by "letting" me BYOD, rather than buying their own, fine. They can lease it from me during the workday, in addition to my pay. If they think they're going to get it for free, they can suck eggs.

    6. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Sounds like they finally realized that they were wrong and are trying to fix the worst abuses of the law.
      I think we should allow people to admit they were wrong and try to make amends.
      (Not that I expect any long term fundamental improvement from these sleazy bastards.)

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    7. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by causality · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Would you prefer that they stick to their guns and continue doing harm? I prefer politicians who are willing to change their minds based on public opinion, thank you very much.

      If we had politicians who didn't give a fuck about public opinion and perhaps even had contempt for the way it was openly swayed and outright engineered by all the fearmongering, we'd have never had a Patriot Act to begin with.

      Amending the Constitution to make every Senator an elected official was a huge mistake. It's one of those things that sounds nice until you realize what it actually causes. You really do need state-appointed Senators who can and will halt rash and badly-written laws because they aren't vulnerable to "Senator X voted to make us less safe!" rhetoric at election time. It would also go a long way to curtailing the federal practice of bullying the States by withholding their own damned money if they don't do as they're told.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Well that isn't the only issue. BYOD also allows your company to avoid liability if the employee does anything illegal with it that you didn't authorize, such as using pirated software."

      Well, I can nip that rumor in the bud. First, if you have an agreement stating that you, rather than the company, are liable or your own transgressions, in most cases it would be binding. Second, do you mean downloaded apps? Downloading is not piracy, which is a legal term meaning something else. Despite the fact that the RIAA and MPAA have spent millions trying to get you to think it is. You do their work for them when you call it that. Simply downloading a copied app is not a crime. Piracy is. They are legally two very different things.

      "If your company saves money when you work from home instead of leasing more office space, you may as well argue that they're now responsible for your mortgage payment as well."

      Nonsense. That is a different situation. There are definite perks to living at home, which offset any lost revenue from "renting" the space to the company. Using YOUR equipment, however, is a different story. If they did it themselves, they'd have to buy or lease the equipment. If they hired a contractor, the contractor would buy or lease the equipment (and pass the cost on to them). In contrast, you're trying to say they can require an employee to buy or lease the equipment themselves, with no compensation.

      Just plain bullshit.

    9. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by fnj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's exactly the reason for the 17th. The Senate was not a malleable enough rubber stamp for tyranny. It was brilliant how the Senate damped the stupidity of the House until the 17th turned the Senate into a half-assed extension of the House.

      The 16th, 17th, and 18th. Three shitty amendments that did devastating damage to the nation, passed in a span of six years. The exact same six year span which also saw the corrupt Federal Reserve come into existence.

      And we were doing so well with the first fifteen.

    10. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      No and I'll tell you why, I read it somewhere else -- no one has figured out how to gerrymander a whole state yet. Currently the Republicans hold the majority of the seats in the House even though they overall received fewer votes in House elections in 2012 than the Democrats. This is mostly due to the very effective (or horrific, if you believe in equal representation) gerrymandering of the House seats done after the 2010. Party representation in the Senate is much closer to the popular vote of the people, though it wasn't intended that way. It's ironic but the Senate has become the house of Congress which best represents the popular vote as the House was intended. If the State legislatures selected the Senate, the Senate would represent the gerrymandering of the State legislatures, nothing more. Until partisan gerrymandering is fixed, a popularly elected Senate is the best we've got. The US Constitution was not designed to withstand the corruption of strong political parties.

    11. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I prefer politicians who are willing to change their minds based on public opinion, thank you very much.
       
      I prefer politicians who are willing to change their minds based on facts and new information, not based on public opinion. Public opinion is subject to all kinds of superficial things because majority of people don't have time to understand all the issues and therefore pick up their opinions from a few soundbites. Public opinion does not depend on reality but on the agenda of those who are the best at shaping it, and should never be trusted.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    12. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      You're confused on some points. House electoral districts are decided at the state level, and every state has its own procedures. When those procedures are political, you generally have to have control of some key part of the state government to make decisions about the state's legislative districts. You are effectively complaining that the Republicans are winning at the national level because they are winning at the state level. Each district election is it's own race. Any so-called "national tally" of votes for either the House or Senate is essentially meaningless, the system doesn't work that way. The US doesn't use proportional representation on a national basis. There is no "gerrymandering" of the presidency - it is a single office. The only effort to alter presidential elections that is anywhere close to coming to fruition is the multistate compact that will assign Electoral College electors based on the popular vote once enough states sign up for it. There is little support to repeal the 17th Amendment, but what little support exists is a result of wanting to restrain the Federal government's overreach.

      --
      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
    13. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      The US Congress has both approaches. The House elections run every two years with the idea that it will be a closer representation of the voters views, and to some extent their passions. The Senate elections are for six years, and are staggered. The Senate is supposed to be the more deliberative body.

      --
      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
    14. Re:And now they get credit for saving us by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Interesting idea, since most rich people pay relatively less of their taxes than I do. I'm pretty much at the peak, making somewhat less than the FICA cutoff, and getting almost all of my income by actually working for it. (You did say "federal taxes" after all, and that includes FICA. That's the heaviest tax burden on the working poor, and they should get credit for it.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Herpaderp by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... In other news, senators stopped short of repealing the Patriot Act, likely aware that without deleting the entire act, all they're accomplishing is switching the data collection activities to another agency, which will then perform the role the NSA currently has.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. We also need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We also need a law prohibiting all these fucking acronym law names... fucking seriously...

    1. Re:We also need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having not read the bill, or likely being able to even understand its meaning had I read it, I can only assume that, similarly to the USA PATRIOT Act, its acronym means the opposite of the abuses it will enable.

    2. Re:We also need... by mevets · · Score: 2

      +1.
      Is there really any benefit to having legislation spell out like an awkward cheerleading chant? It must be so embarrassing for them.

    3. Re:We also need... by anagama · · Score: 3, Funny

      The FUCKERS Act?

      Fucking Ultimate Congressional Kutsie Elimination Reform and Solutions Act

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:We also need... by Cimexus · · Score: 2

      Yeah WTF is with Americans (well, the Feds at least) making all their Act names fit some form of tortured acronym. I'm not aware of them doing that in any other country...

  4. can get worse by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 2

    Wait until Merkel, Kristina and half a billion women find out about any upskirt pics...

    1. Re:can get worse by base3 · · Score: 2

      Talk about gun control. Mine might never fire again after that visual.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  5. I have a easier answer... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just repeal the damned PATRIOT act. IT was supposed to be a temporary measure and it needs to go away now.

    Why dont these senators have any backbone or honestly left in them and just repeal it?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I have a easier answer... by sI4shd0rk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IT was supposed to be a temporary measure

      Temporary or not, it was awful and it should never have passed.

      --
      Ignorance is a choice
    2. Re:I have a easier answer... by fatphil · · Score: 2

      And the fact that it was is evidence enough that it will never be revoked. Yes, they are that corrupt. (Sorry, not writing off such malice as stupidity in this case.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    3. Re:I have a easier answer... by FridayBob · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just repeal the damned PATRIOT act. IT was supposed to be a temporary measure and it needs to go away now. Why dont these senators have any backbone or honestly left in them and just repeal it?

      Completely agree, but I fear that won't happen (not even the USA Freedom Act) because Congress doesn't work for us anymore: they work for rich folks and for the corporations. That's because bribery is legal these days and those in Congress have found that 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money wins. Consequently, fundraising is what they do 60% of the time; "following the green," as they call it. So, if companies like Booz Allen Hamilton start instructing their stooges in Congress on both sides of the isle about what they want, the PATRIOT Act will remain and the USA Freedom Act will fail.

      To fix that and many other things, we first need to get money out of politics.

      If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles.

      .

      *) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.

      **) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.

    4. Re:I have a easier answer... by sI4shd0rk · · Score: 2

      But in the real world, they're people

      They're human garbage, so I suppose they are kind of human.

      --
      Ignorance is a choice
    5. Re:I have a easier answer... by s.petry · · Score: 2

      You are not even close on this one. Until CU campaign gifts were limited to people, and there were limits on those donations. CU gave a simple way to dismiss donation limits and made bribery perfectly legal. Look how Sarah Palin traveled with her family on millions of dollars of "campaign donations" and didn't even run for an office! It's not free speech and has nothing to do with free speech, it's called bribery!

      Lets also look at some historical context. George Washington did not want to be the President. Most back then had no desire to be a Politician, they all had their own things going on and were pretty happy doing their own things. Politics didn't pay well and took lots of time. Term limits were instituted by people that didn't want to be in a public office.

      So the changes we have seen are not just that bribery has become legal and that people can legally abuse the donations given. Another issue is that one of the fastest ways to become a millionaire in the USA is to get into political office. Look at what a Senator or Congress Member makes, and what they are given. Travel, Body guards, Housing, transportation, clothing, food, servants (maid/butler/gardener, etc..) and a better salary than the majority of US Citizens make. They can legally use insider information to invest that money and make more money, while you would go to jail for the same thing.

      There is lots to fix in the Country right now, term limits should be high on the list. Limiting funding from private corporations and people should be another immediate change. It was not that long ago that gifts by corporations were illegal, period.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  6. This isn't new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This isn't new. The author of the Patriot Act (Jim Sensenbrenner) has been campaigning against Surveillance State since the beginning of the Snowden fiasco.

    He probably decided he doesn't want to go down in history as the man who turned America into a Dystopia.

    1. Re:This isn't new by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, he was just the scribe. It was done by 536 traitors, backed by 300 million cowards.

  7. Re:Don;t worry about the NSA - stop Obamacare! by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obamacare is the real threat to this country, and will destroy us through wealth redistribution and bankrupting the country we leave to our chiildren. We need to focus our efforts to end the Socialist agenda.

    Hmmm. Healthcare for all Americans, or eavesdropping for all Americans. Is there even a debate here?

  8. USA Freedom Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't that what the Constitution is supposed to be?

    We don't need another Law. The Laws that made this garbage legal are unconstitutional and criminal.

    We don't need another Law. We need to hunt down and incarcerate the criminals who created this mess.

    We don't need another Law. We need to hold government officials personally accountable for their flagrant and criminal violations of the Constitution.

    We don't need another Law. We already have a USA Freedom Act. It is called "The Constitution of the United States."

    1. Re:USA Freedom Act by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Informative

      USA Freedom Act .... Isn't that what the Constitution is supposed to be?

      No. The Constitution is exactly that, a constitution. It is a base governing document that lays out the form of government and various rights and responsibilities. It is silent on many things. It says nothing about how much money Social Security is getting next year, or the Marines, or if section 205 of the Patriot Act even exists.

      We don't need another Law. The Laws that made this garbage legal are unconstitutional and criminal.

      If you think they are unconstitutional, then can you show where they were struck down by a court as such? If they aren't struck down by a court, then they need to be repealed by the legislature.

      We don't need another Law. We need to hunt down and incarcerate the criminals who created this mess.

      You need another law to repeal or alter the aspects of the law that you don't like if a court doesn't strike it down. The criminals responsible for creating this mess have been the source of an active manhunt for 12 years. The ringleader is dead, and most of his original lieutenants are either captured or dead, some are in hiding. Since I'm sure you didn't mean that - you better wait until Congress repeals it, or it will still be on the books.

      We don't need another Law. We need to hold government officials personally accountable for their flagrant and criminal violations of the Constitution.

      An election is coming up. Do your worst.

      We don't need another Law. We already have a USA Freedom Act. It is called "The Constitution of the United States."

      We've covered this, but I'll add one more thing. The Constitution gave Congress the power to make laws. Congress made a law that resulted in this issue. Since the courts haven't struck it down, it is still the law of the land. How about we let Congress do their job and pass a law to try and resolve the issue instead of making specious claims that no law change is required?

      --
      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
    2. Re:USA Freedom Act by fnj · · Score: 2

      The real problem is that the court system up to and including the supreme court is part of the corruption. When a national government falls into deeply seated corruption, it very seldom gets fixed without a revolution.

    3. Re:USA Freedom Act by houghi · · Score: 2

      An election is coming up. Do your worst.

      Awww. So cute. You still think that first elections are relevant and second that politicians keep their word after the election.

      That might be true if you have a REAL choice. You can select between damned if you do and damned if you don't.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  9. Ah Sensenbrenner by contrapunctus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't this the same guy and attached the Real ID act to some armor for soldiers bill so no one could oppose it?

  10. In other news by nytes · · Score: 4, Funny

    Several Congressmen were rushed to the hospital after suffering severe cases of acronym overdose.

    Acronym abuse has been on the rise in Washington lately. Many researchers attribute the problem to inflated egos, which most politicians also suffer from.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  11. Weasel bastards from hell by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So they are calling it the "USA Freedom Act" - whatever the actual content that's as much of a lowdown weasel act as the naming of the "Patriot " act. If you question it the weasels will say you oppose freedom.
    How about getting these rat fucking weasels away from the process and give the acts numbers instead, and get rid of the bullshit of riders that have nothing to do with the bill while we are at it.

    1. Re:Weasel bastards from hell by rourin_bushi · · Score: 2

      Meh, Acts have been given "human readable" names for qutie a while now.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Parliament#Titles_and_citation_of_Acts

  12. Dianne Feinstein about face by six025 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In related news Dianne Feinstein has turned around her opinion and stated she is now 'totally opposed' to NSA surveillance of US allies.

    Quite surprised at this, hopefully it is not empty rhetoric and actually goes somewhere. Very interested to see what the two leading goons of the NSA have to say for themselves in front of the House intelligence committee on Tuesday.

    Peace,
    Andy.

    1. Re:Dianne Feinstein about face by george14215 · · Score: 2

      NSA to Dianne: "But it's about keeping America safe!" Interesting that the canard she tries to use on us isn't good enough when it's applied to her. Oh, you don't like being in the dark? Well neither do we, bitch!

  13. Anyone else think these names are hilariously bad? by theArtificial · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Something titled USA Freedom Act seems to reek of more BS. This whole situation would be laughable if it wasn't so real and these names seem like something from Metal Gear Solid. Why do they need to pass more laws? Aren't there already laws on the books that cover this abuse? Or is this one of those situations where it's done "on the internet" so we'll need to get together and figure something out with lots of fine print? I think I'll make a script to generate some act names but USA Enduring Patriotic Democracy Internet Freedom Fries Soaring Literacy Majestic Eagle Act does have a nice ring to it...

    --
    Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  14. Re:Spawn by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Posting as Anonymous for obvious reasons.

    Yeah, sometimes I forget my password too.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  15. Re:So we ignore the 40+ Democrats... by Bartles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, as long as you also ignore the 145 Democrats in the house and 48 Democrats in the senate that voted for the Patriot Act in 2001. Their record for reauthorizing it in 2006 is only slightly better.

  16. Re:Don;t worry about the NSA - stop Obamacare! by Bartles · · Score: 2

    Except the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government's powers of taxation is what allows them to compel you to purchase a product. It is not voluntary.

  17. Re:And your basis for this is? by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

    get that this is the feeling of much of /. but what example can you cite?

    Pretty much the entire Act as it currently stands. There's a lot of vaguely-worded clauses that grant nearly limitless authority and do not require disclosure of the reasons for many police actions. It would be relatively easy to stitch together what is being given up by these politicians from other parts of the Act and have yourself a new Franken-agency.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  18. acronymics by pupsocket · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "United and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet Collection, and Online Monitoring Act — also known by its less-clunky acronym version, the USA Freedom Act."

    Actually, the acronym of that title is USA FREED COMA

  19. Re:Naive by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

    What, you wanted the people voting on the bill to actually read and comprehend the contents of the bill too!

  20. Re:And your basis for this is? by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pretty much the entire Act as it currently stands. There's a lot of vaguely-worded clauses that grant nearly limitless authority and do not require disclosure of the reasons for many police actions. It would be relatively easy to stitch together what is being given up by these politicians from other parts of the Act and have yourself a new Franken-agency.

    By removing permissions to do those things?
    How does that get stitched into another agency?
    You removed the permission, and you add a whole bunch of shall nots, so that there is nothing left to stitch.

    Most of these things that you object to, limitless authority, gag orders, etc are the spawn of section 215.

    This is the first of 12 such bills waiting in the wings.
    This bill probably doesn't go near far enough, but Section 215 is one of the most dangerous sections of the entire law. Any amount of crippling that can be done to it is long overdue. I don't trust Sensenbrenner to do enough, and I hope his efforts aren't a sop to divert attention with the appearance of doing something.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  21. Re:Acronym by sconeu · · Score: 2

    Many Bothan interns died to bring us this acronym!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  22. Re:Don;t worry about the NSA - stop Obamacare! by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

    One of the things that I find particularly amusing is that the overwhelming majority of those arguing against wealth redistribution are net receivers of such programs. Another thing I find amusing is that a substantial subset of those people will rage against anyone trying to strip away Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  23. Re:Don;t worry about the NSA - stop Obamacare! by Falconhell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Observation shows americans have stupid paranoid about socialism, and despite not having anything like socialism, have a huge authoritarian government. Which makes you look like a moron.

  24. Re:And your basis for this is? by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Informative

    By removing permissions to do those things?

    Sigh. Firstly, you need to read section 215. It grants the Director of the FBI (not NSA) the ability to get ex parte authorizations for a search warrant, and the recipient is then gagged. That's it. The NSA isn't even referenced or involved, except perhaps to process the evidence gathered by the FBI. This is how they go to a bank, library, ISP, etc., and say "We want all your records on this person." and they have to turn them over and then not inform their client this happened. And they don't have to produce any evidence or give a reason to the recipient. It's just "wham, bam, thank you ma'am." ... and you better keep this between us.

    The authority and power to do this is available in literally hundreds of other laws; Striking section 215 would simply mean they have to use a different administrative process to continue doing the exact same thing. This is political grandstanding -- not only is this "anti-NSA" bill not about the NSA, but regardless of whether it passes or fails, it will not change how business is being done.

    Which, big surprise -- Our congress-critters are introducing a bill that accomplishes nothing, but has a nice, patriotic, sounding name. The "freedom act". Yeah. We can all get behind that! What does the freedom act do?

    Nothing.

    Typical.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  25. Re:And your basis for this is? by icebike · · Score: 2

    215 give authority to get records and a gag order.
    The NSA never had that authority before, still don't. the FBI does, but its a distinction without a difference.

    215 is critical, and the Patriot act would not have been passed if there equivalent provisions in "literally hundreds of other laws". You can't rail against the Patriot act in one post then dismiss it as inconsequential in the next.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  26. Re:Don;t worry about the NSA - stop Obamacare! by Falconhell · · Score: 2, Informative

    You obviously have no concept of what socialism means, being an American its no surprise.
    Here's a hint, you don't have any form of socialism in the US, anything you see is on your imagination.
    Funny how my socialist country has one of the best economies in the world and is no more authoritarian than the US. And we even manage to have universal healthcare. The ignorance of Americans never ceases to amaze!

  27. Re:Don;t worry about the NSA - stop Obamacare! by dryeo · · Score: 2

    Most of the Countries of the Middle East are pretty capitalist, especially some of the Sheikdoms and Kingdoms.
    As for Russia, they've switched from their brand of Socialism to Capitalism so of course the average Russians health has dropped. As for their Constitution, they probably follow it as much as America follows theirs.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  28. Will they really stop? Is there accountability? by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is the data they're collecting actually useful, or is it kind of tinfoil-hat paranoid useful where they get confirmation bias patterns out of it and believe it's useful?

    And if so, what makes us think they will actually stop collecting it, especially if what they have is useful to other people (FBI, CIA, military..)? The whole operation is uber top secret and after Snowden I would imagine that they are redoubling their leak containment and secrecy. Sure, they've been able to ask/strongarm some of it and they might be impeded from doing that anymore but much of the principal job is spying -- surreptitiously obtaining and decoding information meant to be secret -- won't they just figure out how to get it through other means anyway?

    Who or what can actually audit what the NSA does and what data they collect anyway? It sounds like a level of intelligence clearance and top-secretness that nobody but an insider can get and it always seems that once even an "agent for change *cough*Obama*cough* gets insight into this stuff they suddenly start being advocates for intelligence, not for change,