NSA Surveillance Reform Bill Passes House 303 Votes To 121

First time accepted submitter strangeintp (892348) writes "The first legislation aimed specifically at curbing US surveillance abuses revealed by Edward Snowden passed the House of Representatives on Thursday, with a majority of both Republicans and Democrats. But last-minute efforts by intelligence community loyalists to weaken key language in the USA Freedom Act led to a larger-than-expected rebellion by members of Congress, with the measure passing by 303 votes to 121. The bill's authors concede it was watered down significantly in recent days but insist it will still outlaw the practice of bulk collection of US telephone metadata by the NSA first revealed by Snowden."

Comments

Slow clap

[scuzzlebutt]

*clap* *clap* *clap*

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you read the part about how watered down it became? There's nothing to clap about, unless someone gave you a reach around as you were being cornholed. Oh, and let's find out who the 121 douches were that voted against this.

Re:Slow clap

[scuzzlebutt]

That's the slow clap. It's sarcastic applause.

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and let's find out who the 121 douches were that voted against this.

Here you go: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll230.xml

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad my state had both Yeas. (MI)

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you read the part about how watered down it became? There's nothing to clap about, unless someone gave you a reach around as you were being cornholed. Oh, and let's find out who the 121 douches were that voted against this.

Hey, at least it wasn't outright rejected by Harry Reid, like the bill passed by the House today that would have cleaned up the Veterans Administration. But the dems don't want to acknowledge that socialized medicine isn't working for the VA while they're trying to shove it onto the rest of us.

(captcha: "enemas". lol)

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, real great.... they promise to stop collecting meta-data.... so now they'll just collect EVERYTHING ELSE... full audio of every call.... don't store the meta-data of the phone numbers... associate those numbers to CitizenIDs and store those instead.

laws are for gurls who can't aim a gun.

you're a bunch of sissies.

Re:Slow clap

[NotInHere]

No, Bentivolio and Amash were nays. Michigan has more than just two seats.

Re:Slow clap

[Jane Q. Public]

That's the slow clap. It's sarcastic applause.

Yes, and well-deserved. They weasel-worded it out of any teeth. Or many, anyway.

How did our Congress become such a bunch of administration brown-noses? Seriously. What is wrong with them?

Re:Slow clap

[Ziest]

Friend, I'm guessing that you have never served in the military. If you have, please tell us which branch and where were you stationed.

Re: Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, the fucking sponsor was among the nays. It wasn't "watered down": it was castrated and then turned into a pro-NSA bill that continues the status quo and adds more time in for parts of the PATRIOT act. We should find out who did that to this bill and piblicize their names with infamy from now until the next election.

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the no votes were protests against how watered down the bill was.

Re:Slow clap

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

How did our Congress become such a bunch of administration brown-noses? Seriously. What is wrong with them?

You mean if you were in Congress, you wouldn't be afraid of the NSA? I'm afraid of them, and I'm just a regular guy with no power.

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like you'll ever lift a damned finger.

Re:Slow clap

[SydShamino]

I think there were other reasons to vote against it, if only because Lloyd Doggett is one of the most liberal members of the house.

Indeed, daily kos calls the watered-down bill "an authorization of domestic spying in violation of the 4th amendment" and is congratulating the 121 members who had the backbone to vote against it.

So I think your attack on (at least part of) the 121 is unfounded; they are a mix of those who refused to authorize spying with those who thought existing law was great. Likewise, the 303 who approved are probably a mix of those who thought this "reining in" was better than nothing, along with the truly evil who did the closed-door rewrite to make it mostly ineffective.

Re: Slow clap

[SydShamino]

And that's why it was done behind closed doors.

Re:Slow clap

[interkin3tic]

Careful there, they're recording the metadata on that clap, and if you're in the Bahamas or one other unnamed country, they'll keep the sound on file up to a month!

(I hope my joke doesn't seem like I'm trivializing it. I'll give $20 to the EFF in penance the next time I have $20 to spare)

Re:Slow clap

[geekoid]

Did you read it? did you read the part where they removed loop holes fro the Senate version? no?
of course not that would mean you would have to think.

Re:Slow clap

[Cornwallis]

Agreed. Since King of NY and Rogers of MI - who have the NSA's hand so far up their backsides - voted YEA I'm inclined to say the NAYS are close to being Patriots.

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the slow clap. It's sarcastic applause.

Yes, and well-deserved. They weasel-worded it out of any teeth. Or many, anyway.

How did our Congress become such a bunch of administration brown-noses? Seriously. What is wrong with them?

Obama - aka Bush III - was going to veto it otherwise. That's his leverage, and it appears he used it.

Re: Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

So blame everyone behind those doors.

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

With their numbers, Congress can ram his veto wherever they choose. If they change the bill to be meaningless, we can only assume they are all compromised by NSA spying and should be voted out of office ASAP.

Re:Slow clap

[Bartles]

No it's not. The slow clap is heartfelt and genuine. Haven't you seen Cool Runnings?

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not your friend, buddy.

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

A corollary to Murphy's Law. Anything bad the NSA wanted to do to you, it would have done so already. Either that or the NSA are complete fuck ups who don't know who to target and wait until *after* you're a high profile person who can't readily be targeted without obvious suspicious results which, if anything, might drive Congress to actually crush the NSA *before* the NSA crushes it--as it has proven that it's not omnipotent and hence one should always attack first in such circumstances.

Nah, to be honest, Congress is a bunch of toothless puppets and unsurprisingly their legislation is the same.

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

meh - the NSA, FBI, CIA are all a bunch of traitorous scum - send in the troops, arrest them, line them up against a wall and shoot the fuckers.

when I say line them up, I mean in a straight line, and use 50 caliber armor piercing rounds - find out just how many human bodies a single shot can go through
after gut-shotting them, leave them to die in snake / croc infested swamps

It's no less than they deserve from what they've done to this country and it's people - next up, corporate heads that allowed NSA/FBI/CIA the illegal access they did - same punishment.

Re:Slow clap

[phantomfive]

I think there were other reasons to vote against it, if only because Lloyd Doggett is one of the most liberal members of the house.

Is that your way of saying that Lloyd Doggett is a good guy? This is kind of a bi-partisan thing, both for and against. It's not related to liberal and conservative.

Re:Slow clap

[Tom]

You mean if you were in Congress, you wouldn't be afraid of the NSA? I'm afraid of them, and I'm just a regular guy with no power.

If you are afraid of the NSA, you have no job being in congress, and/or your primary goal should be to shut it the fuck down, because if an arm of the executive has the legislative so afraid that it can control them, then you're not living in a democracy anymore. For a free country. You're living in a military dictatorship.

Re:Slow clap

[dwpro]

Lloyd Doggett is a stand up gent and the only elected official that I am proud to say represents me. He sponsored the bill to close the NSA "backdoor", and he's typically on the right side of these issues. I'm not surprised he voted against this faux reform bill.

Re: Slow clap

[VortexCortex]

It took folks on both sides of the doors to throw the constitution out the window.

Re: Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the House "Rules Committee".

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

With their numbers, Congress can ram his veto wherever they choose.

Yes, 303 does pass the 2/3 super-majority requirement, but by a slim margin. How can you be sure that we would still have 303 votes for the unadulterated version?

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the US.. OK not technically a military dictatorship, but with only 2 political parties with practically no difference between them with regards to governing issues (the BS issues like abortion or gun control are only meant to divide and distract), the US is still a dictatorship.

The country was created with executive, legislative and judicial branches that were all designed to be in a constant fight against each other to purposely keep government inefficient and therefore small. When they all work together, they are guaranteed to be working against the best interests of the people.

Even knowing the above, the media complains frequently about how "ineffecient" or how one party is only "blocking progress" and how wonderful it is that our president can dictate through executive orders. Executive orders are ONLY bad it doesn't matter who is in charge.

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the daily kos is a site based on fact... /sarcasm (that should be blatantly obvious combining "kos" and "fact" in the same sentence but there will be some people who will miss it)

Re:Slow clap

[bluefoxlucid]

That's self-contradictory. Maybe the 121 who voted against it disagreed with passing such a weak and toothless bill. I would have voted against it; give me a pile driver, not a 6 ounce ball peen hammer.

Re: Slow clap

[JohnFen]

I'll blame everyone who voted in favor of this travesty.

Rubbing salt in the wound is that people are saying that "it will still outlaw the practice of bulk collection of US telephone metadata by the NSA first revealed by Snowden". The implication is that the practice of bulk collection of US telephone metadata is outlawed, when in fact it's not. It's been further legalized. The change is just where the data is stored -- which is no real change at all.

Re:Slow clap

[Jane Q. Public]

This.

Which makes me wonder why Dianne Feinstein, who was a victim of the NSA, still thinks surveillance is just fine for OTHER PEOPLE.

On second thought, no I don't wonder why.

Re: Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

nah - just bolt the doors, and don't let them out - ever. eventually the problem will take care of itself when they finish feeding off each other as the brainless zombies they are.

Re:Slow clap

[Tom]

but with only 2 political parties

You completely missed the point. If a branch of the executive can control the legislative, then parties don't matter at all. You could have 20 parties and it wouldn't make a difference.

Re:Slow clap

[fuzzy2k]

How did our Congress become such a bunch of administration brown-noses? Seriously. What is wrong with them?

They like the money, power and perks of the job and understand that if they stand up to power, they will lose all that.

Told you that you were serfs

[WillAffleckUW]

Wait.

Even serfs had the right to have their own advocate.

You're not serfs.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[TheCarp]

Its funny, during the last election I made a facebook comment about us being serfs; and an old friend of mine who has spent entirely more time than leads to employability in the academic study of pre-rennassaince europe chimed in with quite a rant about how it was an insult to actual serfdom.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Ralph Wiggam]

Your friend got shitty grades in those pre-renaissance Europe classes. The defining characteristic of the serf class was that people born serfs would live their entire lives as serfs and their children would too. There was no pathway to move up classes.

It's difficult to move up in classes in modern America, but it's possible. Two of our last three Presidents were raised by poor single mothers. Dr. Dre grew up in Compton and just made a billion dollars.

Actual serfs would have given anything for the rights, representation, and social mobility that we bitch about.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[WillAffleckUW]

Serfs had the right to have an advocate present.

American citizens don't.

Serfs could not be killed without judicial order.

American citizens can.

Comprende?

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[WillAffleckUW]

try using a dictionary and look up advocate.

then go ask a lawyer what it means.

you're welcome.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Ralph Wiggam]

Bullshit. Just because those rights were written on a piece of paper doesn't mean serfs actually saw any of those rights. If the Lord walked into your hut and raped your wife, what would you do? File a grievance with this advocate? Come on.

"You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you."

Does that ring any bells with you?

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[SydShamino]

I'm sorry it's a stupid movie example, but the fact that a few from luck and/or skill get to move up doesn't make the rest of the system okay. It's like saying there's no oppression in The Hunger Games because game winners become rich celebrities.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[WillAffleckUW]

But you don't have the right to an attorney.

The NSA can Unconstitutionally collect information on you without a court order or the right to have an advocate rebut any secret court orders to collect information on your American citizen self in the USA.

Think about that.

You "think" you have a right.

But you don't ACTUALLY have that right.

Serfs had that right.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Oligonicella]

No, they did not. The nobility could and did take whatever they wanted and there was no recourse. What you're spouting is a pipe dream concocted by academia to belittle today.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[WillAffleckUW]

you're still "entitled" to less than a serf's legal rights.

and at the end of the day, that means a serf had more rights than you do

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Ralph Wiggam]

This site has become such an embarrassment.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Ralph Wiggam]

I didn't say the system is ok. I said that comparing us to medieval serfs is utterly ridiculous.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Anonymous Coward]

And the American system is above such actions? the law being there is what gives the right to the serfs. it being habitually broken is a different issue (and one that is present both for americans and serfs)

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[sjames]

Very few Americans ever manage to rise above the station they were born to. But they do get to work more hours than a serf with much less security. None of our last 3 presidents grew up in poverty though Clinton did see some rough patches and his home life wasn't all that good.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Anonymous Coward]

The word "serf" comes from the Latin "servus", which is the word for slave.

In any event, it is anachronistic to compare actual serfdom to whatever is going on today. Did the serfs really have more rights, or did the Lords simply not have the ability to operate surveillance?

Serfs may well have had more freedom in some ways, but those ways usually only have use or meaning for people who live in the first part of the 21st Century. I assure you, I'm not entirely okay with the NSA spying on me, but I'll take that over being an agricultural peasant tied to the land who was responsible for maintaining a medieval mounted soldier. I'm sure there are a few aspects of peasant life that might appeal to me, but not bloody many of them.

 

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[surd1618]

The defining characteristic of the serf class was that people born serfs would live their entire lives as serfs and their children would too. There was no pathway to move up classes.

It's all about the rate of change. Upward mobility is falling in the USA like a rock from the sky. Compare the total public debt to the ever-growing income disparity:
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/m...
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/file...
These things do not bode well for those not born into at least the upper middle class, and specific examples to the contrary only speak to the legal and socioeconomic possibility of moving upwards, not the difficulty.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[HiThere]

The actuality is that there were routes of upwards mobility for serfs as individuals. They were rarely successful, but they did exist. The military and the church.

It's also true that the legal rights, as well as the practical rights, of serfs differed from "country" to "country" as well as from century to century. (Countries, as such, didn't exist until the latter part of the middle ages, even though there were areas which later became countries. Counties, Barronies, and Fiefs are more about the early part of the middle ages [post Attilla].)
Note that Charlemagne claimed to be king of what is now France, Germany, and parts in between, but he didn't collect taxes over that area. He was given "gifts" in exchange for governmental favors. And there were independent tribes that didn't acknowledge him. I think those "independent tribes" lasted through the period when his "kingdom" was divided up among his heirs.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[sillybilly]

I recently had the chance to work with a "farmer boy." He never gets tired, he used to work 18's. On a hogfarm. Only people who have been around a real farm can appreciate that statement, because chicken shit is bad, but it's not that bad, cow shit is almost pleasant, but working in pig shit is just awful. A vegetable farm is a whole lot more enjoyable than most livestock farms, that is closed quarter livestock where the shit piles up deep, not open wild roaming cattle ranches, or other free range chicken places, those are pretty nice. Working all day. That's a farmer's life even today, in the US, work from sunup to sundown, and make like 7000 a year on a small farm if you're lucky(at much less than minimum wage if you count the hours), from which you have to pay $20 special farming property tax on an at least 10 acre lot (unless you can figure out how to make some astronomical amount of money farming on less land, astronomical in terms of farm incomes, something like $5000/yr farming on 5 acres, then you can get the farming property tax discount on smaller lots too). If you have more land, you may be able to afford machinery, but maintenance and repair is often impossible if they are fuel injected or just computerized and chipped in any way, as you don't know what a chip does, you can't get the full spec and description, or protocols used, the manufacturer won't tell you, and even if he will, it's too complicated to tackle the capturing of a 1 ns burst on ping #153 out of 200 pins (hey you were holding the probe to the wrong pin, and damn, there flew that 1 ns electric trigger signal, you missed it! Troubleshooting if a chip even functions properly can be near impossible, let alone achieving security from hidden remote controls, wifi's, satellite link gps trackers that the manufacturer or the government may hide in every significant farming equipment that comes with chips). And unlike a horse that gives you new horses, you have to keep buying and buying newer and newer farm machinery at whatever astronomical prices they are sold at, before you paid off the loan on the previous one, because the stuff you make with it, the food, is so low priced, only if you make a million tons of it a year do you make good money, and that means a lot of land, and there is only so much land, fertile land, to go around for the 7,000,000,000 people in the world today. But food is the number one priority in everybody's life, and the farmer is the one who feeds everybody. Just because we have a temporary upset in the value or pricing system, in principle, farming, and the ability to self sustain in the absence of a government or an economy, that never loses value. You never read about peaceful farmers in history books, and what's in history books is what farmer's biggest problem is, history books are full of conquerors, not peaceful people, and military defense is the biggest deficiency of a peaceful farmer, for which he has to spend money by either being a serf to a landlord in an aristocratic nobility system, or through taxes (even though taxes like tea tax are so hated) in a Jeffersonian yeoman farmer democracy. The whole United States starts out with We The People believe that all men are created equal, but such an equality is only possible through yeoman farmers as voters, who can be self sufficient if need be, unlike city dwellers, but who are also middle class workers, the middle class being dominant with respect to the rest of the society. The dominant middle class setup has been obliterated, instead we gather two camps, the welfare/unemployment/prison labor class, and the rich get richer stratified "owners" class, a setup which is a de facto aristocratic system, where not all men are created equal. The dominant middle class had to only be sustained while there were worse around the world, such as commies, but once the commies are out, we no longer need to feed the middle class well and show them that see, life is better under private property and owner setup. But without mild wealth redistribution like Jefferson had set in the tax co

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Anonymous Coward]

... Unconstitutionally collect information ...

Look, the Constitution is not some kind of information guardian. There aren't even that many laws governing collection of information. Evidence admissibility rules are what go the furthest with this sort of thing.

Serfs had that right.

Right, and the Information Angel kept vigilant watch o'er the serfdom, lest anyone try to keep tabs on the little serfs who were free to do as they please.

Give me a break. They had to answer to a Lord, and there was little mystery in what they were up to.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Just because those rights were written on a piece of paper doesn't mean serfs actually saw any of those rights. If the Lord walked into your hut and raped your wife, what would you do? File a grievance with this advocate? Come on.

"You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you."

Does that ring any bells with you?

Sounds like a U.S. police officer. There are more of those around than Lords in times of old.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[ExecutorElassus]

This is all totally off-topic, but there is one part of your argument that merits discussion. Pointing out that a few people have experienced very lucrative social mobility is not evidence of the system as a whole being conducive to it. In fact, such arguments serve the exact opposite goal by thwarting meaningful discussion of social and economic policy. A handy thought experiment from Cracked makes it more clear:

Let's say there are a hundred of you and your friends all locked in a room, and you're all starving. I walk in, and out of my fat wallet I pull a wad of bills that it more money than you'd make in a year. I set it on a table, and say, "the last one of you left alive gets this pile of money." Then, when all your friends are dead, you get rich, and I say, "see? The system is fair: any one of you can become a rich person, if only you try hard enough. It deliberately conflates "any of you can get rich" with "all of you will get rich." And you and your friends are so busy fighting each other that nobody is asking why there was only money for one of you in the first place.

Dr. Dre may have become a billionaire, but he grew up in a neighborhood systematically ghettoized, and the majority of the kids he grew up with ended up dead or in jail, and almost all of them stayed poor.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they did not. The nobility could and did take whatever they wanted and there was no recourse.

That isn't an argument for the point. The same applies for the current rulers of the US.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Aighearach]

That fact that you can be killed during combat without a "judicial order" is always the way it was. ;)
And we know that is what you mean, because there is no other situation where Americans can be legally killed without a legal sentence.
Before the Magna Carta, serfs didn't even have basic right to life. And even then the right to life only extended to requiring the Lord who killed you to educate your children. Serfs had certain rights, like a row to grow food. But a general right to life was generally not one. And even when it was, it generally only meant that the Lord had to say the right words before killing you.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Aighearach]

I don't think commoners got protections against rape until after serfs were on the way out.

Serfs certainly had the Right to Justice, but that actually meant the right to have the Lord settle disputes with other serfs. The Lord's judgement was considered more important than a serf's life, so if he decided you needed to die, there was not any piece of paper to say otherwise. The Magna Carta established the right generally, but didn't ban killing a serf without cause; it only established the penalty of having to educate his children. Unfortunately, he'd be the one hearing your complaint.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Aighearach]

You don't have a special "right to an attorney" other than when a legal case is involved. The NSA isn't a law enforcement agency, that is why the right to an attorney doesn't come up; they don't accuse people of crimes. When NSA evidence is used by prosecutors in a real legal case, you'll have an attorney.

You probably just THINK you have different rights than what is actually IN the Constitution. Think about that.

And the serfs didn't have a right to an attorney. They did have a right to have some human speak words on their behalf before the Lord made a unilateral determination of their fate. It was not considered useful at the time. It was also not considered safe to advocate for somebody who about to be executed...

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[VortexCortex]

Less than, Eh? Aich ref equals quote. Aich tea tepee colon slash. Slash soy: lent. News dot oh, our gee. Quote: greater than Meh. Less than slash, eh? Greater than?

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[LaughingVulcan]

You flirt dangerously with TL:DR and lack of paragraphs. But I got through anyway. In rebuttal:

1) The farmhands - fewer than ever and fewer still - don't have jack squat. But I never met a farm owner who didn't buy all new vehicles (pickup and car) every three years or more often.

2) Farmhands often live in squalid conditions. But farm owners usually have the finest homes in the county aside from the few physicians and lawyers who still practice and live rurally.

3) Horses also die unexpectedly, break legs / etc., can be injured during the reproduction process, and have far less power than tractors of fifty years ago. If horses were truly superior to power in terms of productivity, they'd still be in use today. Duh. And if modern computerized tractors weren't more efficient and profit-making than tractors of fifty years ago, they'd never be bought. While farmers must have new personal vehicles, most I've known in life will never dispose of equipment unless swapping makes them more money.

4) It is common sense that, were farmers to truly co-op and fight, food prices would go more to the farmer. But they don't.

5) Yes, deglobalization is a nice thought. Go for it. But, when nobody buys your bug-ridden crop because the processors can get healthier meat shipped from over a border cheaper than you can produce it... Good luck.

6) Yes, farmers and hands do work long and laborious hours. So do many others, and I feel much more for the fast food fry cook than the average farmer or hand. Just sayin'

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[JohnFen]

Representatives ARE our advocates.

With precious few exceptions, they are most certainly not our advocates. By and large, the are the advocates of corporate interests and the very wealthy.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[bluefoxlucid]

Illusion of social mobility. We have traps like the welfare trap and the whole Federal effort to get everyone a college education. If we could eliminate both of these, our upward mobility would be great. Granted, upward mobility impacts balance: the economy may become more wealthy and support more people at a higher level, but there is always a point where someone must come (or stay) down for someone else to move up. Post-scarcity society happens when everyone can move up.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Ralph Wiggam]

Pointing out that a few people have experienced very lucrative social mobility is not evidence of the system as a whole being conducive to it.

I specifically said it was difficult. But it is clearly possible. It was impossible for a serf.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[TangoMargarine]

So we're arguing rights Americans have but are ignored vs. rights serfs had but were ignored. Nice.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[Anonymous Coward]

Studies today show that serfs had more social and class mobility than modern Americans. Even the British, known to have a class bound society, have more social and economic movement between the poor, the middle class, and the rich.

It's obvious America is rapidly turning into a third world country, ruled by despots, except to those distracted by the lack of bread and gladiatorial football games

A step in the right direction

[lance423]

As watered down as the bill may be, it's nice to see congress at least trying to push things in the right direction for once. Will this bill have a major impact? Maybe. Does it pave the way for more laws against mass surveillance? One can hope.

Re:A step in the right direction

[ilikenwf]

They aren't, this is all for appearance sake for elections, so that they can say "I voted in favor of privacy reform to protect you" in their political ads, while having done nothing in reality. It is BS.

Re:A step in the right direction

[scuzzlebutt]

Exactly. It's time for term limits for Congress.

Re:A step in the right direction

[ilikenwf]

And the Judiciaries.

Re:A step in the right direction

[lance423]

As true as I know it is, I'm doing my best not to lose total faith in humanity. Let's face it, not even congressmen like having their shit ruffled through, right? I could be wrong, but it remains to be seen. We'll see how this plays out.

Re:A step in the right direction

[ilikenwf]

There's probably a footnote explicitly protecting government members from investigation.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't include the rest of us in your fight against corruption.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It's time for term limits for Congress.

Term limits for Congress would make the executive branch (NSA) stronger. It would also strengthen staff and lobbyists significantly. If you don't like your old Congressman, vote him out, but don't think about telling me I can't vote for mine. That's not democracy when you want to tell me I can't vote the way I want. Why don't you ask yourself what the real problem you are trying to solve instead of hating on Congressmen.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Even the bill's original cosponsor, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), voted against this bill because he claims the bill is gutted due to the pressure from the White House and both Republican and Democrat party leaders.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't vote for your minimum wage shelf-stacking friend, and while he's a minimum wgae helf stacker you never will be able to.

In fact, you've already been told who you can vote for.

Re:A step in the right direction

[sexconker]

Exactly. It's time for term limits for Congress.

Congress members should get a single term of 2 years and then be then be hastily launched into the sun along with all of their assets.

Re:A step in the right direction

[interkin3tic]

Not true! Not everything politicians do is about elections!

It's also to get everyone to forget about it sooner so the politicians can focus on catering to special interests. "The NSA spying? We took care of that. Now let me explain why we need to deregulate credit card companies."

Re:A step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

And the problem is everyone else's Congressman, right?

Re:A step in the right direction

[geekoid]

I disagree.
I am all for an age max though, say 60.

Re:A step in the right direction

[flanders123]

It is not a step in the right direction. It is window dressing. It is a dress on a pig. It is the a polishing of a turd. The fact that Americans will be OK with this is the EXACT problem. Yours this is the EXACT reaction that the politicians want. The smoke screen has worked. Again.

Re:A step in the right direction

[VortexCortex]

And for Endearment.

Re:A step in the right direction

[TangoMargarine]

Another part of the problem is that serving as a public representative is no longer considered a burden, but a fast track to power and wealth. Back in the colonial days, they had to give up their livelihood during the judicial season.

Obviously:

[toby]

Now we need to spy on those 121 dissenters to find out what the fuck they were thinking.

Re:Obviously:

[ilikenwf]

We need to fire everyone in Washington DC and reform the crap out of everything. Both sides are wrong here - why vote for a flawed by design bill? It only exists for political posturing for elections.

We need to remove the bureaucracy, scrap the tax law and start over, zero base budget every agency, and force everyone in DC to work for an amount that is equal to the mean wage of the nation, since they're supposedly volunteers. On top of that, Obamacare should apply to them and pensions should be removed for all of them, past present and future.

Re:Obviously:

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we need to spy on those 121 dissenters to find out what the fuck they were thinking.

I thought we were spying on everybody already? Why were these 121 people not spied upon? Are you incompetent? Do you WANT another 9/11 you unpatriotic clod?

Re:Obviously:

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone in DC? Taxi drivers and retail employees included? Or just the five hundred or so assholes that the rest of the country is too irresponsible to replace?

Re:Obviously:

[ilikenwf]

Hehe, this...as well as the bureaucrats. We have a lot of bureaus that don't actually do anything other than hire people and spend money, left over from times when they were actually needed. It's like half the daemons in ubuntu, actually.

Re:Obviously:

[Anonymous Coward]

I guessing that a few of them like Rep. Justin Amash (R)(MI) voted against it in protest of the dilution of the bill's power to reign in the NSA's bulk collection surveillance. In fact, Amash was an original cosponsor who wrote this on his Facebook page, “This morning's bill maintains and codifies a large-scale, unconstitutional domestic spying program. It claims to end 'bulk collection' of Americans' data only in a very technical sense: The bill prohibits the government from, for example, ordering a telephone company to turn over all its call records every day.”

Re:Obviously:

[SydShamino]

Some of them were thinking that the bill was so watered down that it actually authorizes spying, and weren't fooled into approving it.

And you were suckered into thinking that they were the bad guys. The establishment wins again.

Speak Truth to Power

[MaskedSlacker]

last-minute efforts by intelligence community loyalists to weaken key language in the USA Freedom Act

Instead of the NewSpeak "intelligence community loyalists" how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[TubeSteak]

how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.
The believe that this is what they have to do to protect "the People."

Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[vettemph]

One man's tax dollar is another man's profit.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

last-minute efforts by intelligence community loyalists to weaken key language in the USA Freedom Act

Instead of the NewSpeak "intelligence community loyalists" how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.

Do "enemies of the people" include everyone who's opinion you disagree with? Maybe you're an "enemy of the people".

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[kruach aum]

No matter whether that's true or false, in this instance the way the intelligence community has chosen to accomplish a goal runs directly counter to the interests of the people it is intended to protect, which is exactly what an enemy is.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[bmo]

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.

Ho ho. If it wasn't in bad faith, why has Keith Alexander been lying through his teeth all this time?

Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.

When you're treated as the enemy as the American people have been by the intelligence community, what else would you expect the reaction to be? Rainbows and unicorns?

Sorry, but doubling down on Total Information Awareness in secret after it had been shouted down publicly and repeatedly is a sign of a rogue agency out for its own interests.

--
BMO

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

"Newspeak" is a method of crippling public discourse and individual thought through the elimination of nuanced descriptive terms. This is NOT an example of it.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't in bad faith, why has Keith Alexander been lying through his teeth all this time?

Because it's intelligence work, not keyboard-jockey internet wankary?

FYI - We are tapping your internet connection and know all your porn habits and terrorist connections.

Love,
The NSA (No Such Agency)

Not gunna happen - spying has to be secret. Otherwise you just have your cock out while you sit their with a microphone while everyone laughs at you.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[MaskedSlacker]

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.

None of the other totalitarians in history were either. That's completely irrelevant.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.
The believe that this is what they have to do to protect "the People."

Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.

Except that their mandate is actually to protect the United Stats and the Constitution, not juts "the people".

A doctor who wants to put you in an induced coma to protect your liver from your alcohol habit isn't acting in "good faith" and neither is an intelligence agency that breaks the law in order to catch criminals.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're fine with the constant breaches of your rights. Almost everyone in America will be happy for you. You do what you like, it's not their problem, it's not their concern.

What is their problem, and their concern, is that numb-nuts fuckwits such as yourself are giving the thumbs up for the constant breaches of the rights of everyone else.

Let me repeat this, so I can be sure you understand:

You are free to do whatever you want with your own rights. You can submit daily reports to the FBI, CIA, and NSA about what you do. Nobody gives a fuck

By supporting the intrusion into the lives of others, you are effectively supporting the oppression of others.

It's a shame we don't have time machines, because we could send you to Moscow in the 50s, with a note taped to your forehead reading "Enemy of the People" so you could be disappeared to a gulag.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[BilI_the_Engineer]

It includes those who try to subvert the principles this country is supposed to stand for, those who violate the highest law of the land, and those who claim to want us to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and yet support policies and take actions that take us in the exact opposite direction.

They're not merely enemies of the people; they're enemies of the very concept of freedom.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[s.petry]

how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.

Prove it! To put it in simple terms: If you take the word of a known liar on good faith, you are an idiot.

Sure, I would agree that "some" of the people probably believe that they are doing a "good job", but that "job" has been defined by corrupt people who are proven to have spoken untrue statements under oath. They don't care about honesty, they care either about themselves and their ilk or an agenda which is being hidden from the Citizens of this Counrty.

Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.

Absolute rubbish! If you don't have the truth in what they are doing, then you don't have the truth in goal. I have no idea why people like you claim "I don't know" + "Immoral and/or illegal actions" + "Known Liars" == "Good for the USA". Making such a claim is completely absurd.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[geekoid]

"goal runs directly counter to the interests of the people it is intended to protect, "
no it doesn't. Not at all.
we can argue the constitutionality of it, and yes it's actually complex. But being able to track someone down that makes a threats is in your best interested.

You may no want that, but that is a different thing.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[NoKaOi]

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.
The believe that this is what they have to do to protect "the People."

Even if that were true, you could say that about most of the evil tyrants throughout history. It doesn't mean what they're doing is actually what's best for the people. They believe it is because they believe that the more power they have, the more they can make things go their way, and that their way is the right way. Their actions are nothing more noble than a power grab.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Solandri]

This isn't the Intelligence community vs the people. This is the Legislative vs the Executive. The intelligence community just does what the Executive branch of government tells it to do. Ultimately, this whole surveillance program was a construct by the Executive branch (started under Bush, continued and expanded under Obama), who got enough of the Legislature on board with it to pass the laws they needed to keep this quasi-legal.

Characterizing it as the intelligence community vs the people is precisely what the politicians want, but it simply isn't the case. This wasn't some rogue NSA operation. It was constructed by and with the full knowledge and support of the President and the members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate. Once it became public and the public was appalled, it became a hot potato and most politicians are now doing everything they can to distance themselves from it, including dumping blame for it entirely on the NSA when the NSA was just doing what they instructed it to do. (Perhaps too willingly, but still they weren't the ones holding the reins.)

You want someone to blame, blame the President (both of them) and the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and to a lesser extent all the legislators who blindly voted for things like the PATRIOT Act.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Bite The Pillow]

Keith Alexander was lying because he cannot release top secret information in a public forum. IIRC he wrote to the head of the committee and basically said "I didn't tell you everything because you made this public."

You didn't really want an answer, but there it is. Is the only answer that Keith Alexander is acting in bad faith? What if there are actually people who believe they are doing the right thing? You might have scored a point against one guy, but there are rafts full of people who really do want to do the right thing, and they think this is the right thing.

It's hard to make a rational argument when you're angry, and it's a lot more helpful to just say "I'm pissed off". At some point, you can start making rational points instead of rhetoric. Emotion makes it hard to express what you are thinking, and frequently to understand what you are thinking.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise - I much prefer a point along the line of kruach aum (#47070503).

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Keith Alexander was lying because he cannot release top secret information in a public forum. IIRC he wrote to the head of the committee and basically said "I didn't tell you everything because you made this public."

Who cares what he wrote to an individual after the fact? If he can't own up to what he's doing as he's doing it, he's got no character worth speaking of.

You might have scored a point against one guy, but there are rafts full of people who really do want to do the right thing, and they think this is the right thing.

History isn't just dotted with people who do terrible or ill-advised things with the best of intentions; it's built upon the mountain of corpses they're responsible for.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Point of clarification here.

"...directly counter to the interests of the people it is intended to protect, which is exactly what an enemy is." The word 'enemy' is correct but, I submit, not specific enough. The word I believe you were looking for was 'traitor'.

I'm not saying that the intelligence community are traitors. However the statement described a threat from within, which matches the dictionary definition of traitors, treason, or perhaps criminals. I'll leave it to the fine readers of /. to decide if the actions of the intelligence community should be described that way.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[dryeo]

The government has a long history of protecting the people from threats like the other party, dissidents, and other politically undesirables. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... for one example.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Tom]

Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.

That's because the american people have been lied to about that goal.

I am with you the whole nine yards. The current US political and more importantly, economical, system absolutely needs these activities. It needs the wars, the crazy oversized military and intelligence community, it needs drone murders in foreign countries and strong-armed international treaties.

The dissonance is that the american public wants the results, but dislikes the methods.

However, for decades they've been told that their wealth is due to working hard and due to freedom and liberty and democracy and because they're great and the land of the free and home of the brave. And they've bought the lie hook, line and sinker.

The truth is that the US since WW2 enjoys a global hegemony and basically reaps the monopoly rent. And a huge part of its wealth and power depends on this position. If the US would fall to being just one player among many, much of its economy and wealth would be shattered. It's a house of cards, really. The USA leadership in many areas is all built upon each other, and if one card drops, everything comes crashing down.

So yes, all these crooks are actually defending america, that is true. It's just that they defend a different america than the people living there think they are in.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what they say:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

"They're not merely enemies of the people; they're enemies of the very concept of freedom."

Said by countless dictators throughout history.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[JohnFen]

Keith Alexander was lying because he cannot release top secret information in a public forum

That he cannot release top secret information in a public forum doesn't mean that the only other option he has is to lie. He could also say "I can't discuss that in a public forum." If he'd done that, he might have a shred of credibility left now. However, that he is fully willing to lie to Congress means that it's unwise to believe a single thing he says.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[BilI_the_Engineer]

And Hitler liked puppies. Do you have a point?

If those dictators weren't dictators, and they were trying to protect the very document that allows their constitutional Republic government to exist in the first place, as well as trying to protect people's fundamental liberties, then you might have a point. But you don't; at all.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[BilI_the_Engineer]

It's not different at all. No government in the world can be trusted with all this data, and no one who even has a modicum of knowledge about how hundreds of millions of people throughout history (Including some in the US!) were abused and/or killed by corrupt governments would say that it's even close to in anyone's best interests to allow human beings with power access to such data. In order to suggest otherwise, you must not only trust this government to do the 'right' thing, but all future governments as well. Needless to say, that's ridiculously idiotic.

But violating people's fundamental liberties and privacy in this way is evil in and of itself, and also isn't in anyone's best interests, regardless of corruption.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

that POS michael hayden lied his ass off for years, on tv and got promoted for it. now this sack of shit is doing the same thing.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Claiming something is top secret because it is illegal is treason. So please, let's just arrest them all and get this farce over with.

Arrest them, put on the kangaroo court and execute them for the traitors they are. From the lowest level of the NSA/CIA/FBI to the top, which includes former and current Presidents, Congress critters and Sinators (intentionally mis-spelled) that did NOTHING to stop them as that makes them at best contributory, at worst traitors themselves.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[Anonymous Coward]

"They're not merely enemies of the people; they're enemies of the very concept of freedom."

LOL you sound like those crazy conservative fascists during the Bush years. "they hate freedom". lol

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[BilI_the_Engineer]

How do I sound like a fascist when I'm criticizing those who demonstrably (much like Bush and his authoritarian asshole buddies) violate the constitution and people's fundamental liberties? How is that anything but an enemy of freedom, especially when they show no signs of stopping unless forced to?

Please explain how there are any similarities between the two situations.

Re:Speak Truth to Power

[BilI_the_Engineer]

This isn't the Intelligence community vs the people. This is the Legislative vs the Executive. The intelligence community just does what the Executive branch of government tells it to do. Ultimately, this whole surveillance program was a construct by the Executive branch (started under Bush, continued and expanded under Obama), who got enough of the Legislature on board with it to pass the laws they needed to keep this quasi-legal.

"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse. If they were truly concerned, they'd go the way of Snowden, or refuse to work there. But they're morally bankrupt.

Really, it's the fault of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, as well as the fault of the people in the intelligence community who mindlessly obey orders, and also the fault of voters who continue to vote for republicans and democrats, which have shown themselves to be evil scumbags.

who cares?

[epyT-R]

Another case of the fox guarding the hen house.

Wishful Number

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been cooler to have 101 more members of Congress vote for reform. 404: NSA not found,

Deeper Underground

[WarJolt]

My theory is that any legislation will just put the covert back into intelligence gathering.

Re:Deeper Underground

[HornWumpus]

Back overseas.

The good old days when the English/Australians spied on the Americans and vice versa.

This goes back to WWII. They started collecting metadata under Ma Bell.

Distraction

[EMG at MU]

Everybody wins here, a bunch of people get to say they did something in the fight against the NSA. The Executive branch and those in the house who support invasive domestic spying get to keep the majority of their surveillance programs, and most importantly there isn't much more meaningful oversight so who actually knows if the NSA is following the rules. The Executive still gets to hide themselves behind national security letters, "state secrets", and special secret courts.

However I do not feel like this caused any meaningful change. Hopefully the nation remains outraged at the NSA and this is just the first step in fixing our domestic spying programs, but I feel like we get a few meaningless bills passed and then this issue goes away until the next Snowden.

Re:Distraction

[easyTree]

Clearly we need an NSA2 to covertly spy on the NSA to see if they're following the rules.

Re:Distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

The Executive still gets to hide themselves behind national security letters, "state secrets", and special secret courts.

That sort of disgruntled talk sounds like treason against His Majesty.

To the Star Chamber with you.

Re:Distraction

[NoKaOi]

Everybody wins here

The fact that your "everyone" doesn't include the citizenry is very indicative of the root of the problem. The people don't matter, only the politicians who are in power matter. These politicians are like teenagers: They have conveniently forgotten the first 3 words of the constitution that they promised to uphold.

Re:Distraction

[the eric conspiracy]

The quantity of winnage for the general citizenry is however infinitesimal.

It's hard to vote out the Gestapo...

[Grog6]

They know everything about you; all it takes is a "gentle reminder" and this bill is turned into a termite-eaten stack of drivel.

I didn't expect any different, It just means they had enough on enough people to effectively gut it before it was passed. We really knew that already...

If it really meant anything, this bill would have contained a passage giving Snowden immunity, as long as he testifies against everyone else inside the Govt that violated the constitution with respect to their illegal activities.

"It's not illegal when the President does it!" didn't work for Nixon, it should not have worked for Bush or Obama. Everyone should be in Jail, at this point, lol.

WTF has our country become?
.

Re:It's hard to vote out the Gestapo...

[interkin3tic]

If it really meant anything, this bill would have contained a passage giving Snowden immunity, as long as he testifies against everyone else inside the Govt that violated the constitution with respect to their illegal activities.

I think there's a bit of false dichotomy there.

They know everything about you; all it takes is a "gentle reminder" and this bill is turned into a termite-eaten stack of drivel. I didn't expect any different, It just means they had enough on enough people to effectively gut it before it was passed. We really knew that already...

The thing with cynicism in politics is that you get zero points for being right about how terrible things are or will be, and it just makes you feel even less like trying to change anything. So lets not say things like that out loud, please?

Re:It's hard to vote out the Gestapo...

[geekoid]

no one violated the constitution, THAT'S the problem.

Re:It's hard to vote out the Gestapo...

[Tom]

I didn't expect any different, It just means they had enough on enough people to effectively gut it before it was passed. We really knew that already...

I doubt the NSA would roll out there (almost certainly existing) politicians-blackmail program for something like this. The much easier solution is to - ignore the bill. It's not like they are new to doing what is clearly illegal, nor lying to congress.

I see this more in the vein of many other laws which "clarify" already existing rules (heck, last I checked the NSA is forbidden by charta to spy on americans, so why this even needed a law is far beyond me).
My favorite satirical news magazine, which was often a better and more accurate read on political news than anything else, used to write this about laws like this: "It was already illegal, but now for real!"

WTF has our country become?

A bureaucracy to move money from the general public into the pockets of the super-rich. Not even the 1%, the 0.01% - the 1% are still 2.5 mio. people. We need to get back from that "the 1%" bullshit and return to the older and more accurate "the upper 10,000".

Re:It's hard to vote out the Gestapo...

[Anonymous Coward]

no one violated the constitution, THAT'S the problem.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The bill sucks. Trust Amash on this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Justin Amash voted against his own bill. In an article for "the Hill" (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/206929-house-votes-to-limit-nsa-spying) he is quoted as saying:

“This morning's bill maintains and codifies a large-scale, unconstitutional domestic spying program,” he wrote in a post on Facebook.

Changes to the language, for instance, would allow the government to obtain data about a broad section of phone records such as "area code 616" or "phone calls made east of the Mississippi."

“The bill green-lights the government's massive data collection activities that sweep up Americans' records in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” he added.

Seems that what was actually passed should actually be called the "Placate the Plebs while Continuing to Screw Them Act of 2014"

Worse than nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The bill basically says that metadata and data should not get collected without a warrant except when one thinks one has a reason. What kind of reason would count as an exception is not actually specified.

So while the previous practice was clearly illegal, this bill makes everything legal since it only applies the "but only if you think this a good idea" metric and clearly everybody already thought it was a good idea to spy on everyone without warrant.

Re:Worse than nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you point to the law it broke (and don't bother saying "unconstitutional", they tiptoed close to the line but the general opinion is that they didn't cross it).

Re:Worse than nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Including the foreign surveilance, I can list up a long list of human rights..

But since you allow torture anyway, why care about human rights?

Re:Worse than nothing.

[AHuxley]

Perhaps the AC forgets or does not wish to recall the origins of some of the domestic protections and past efforts to sneak around them:
Project MINARET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The "unconstitutional" covers every aspect of color of law and US general opinions. You dont get to rewrite US law for a few decades due to a stacked generation of legal experts seeing or experiencing 'something' not good.
US constitutional law would then be useless in the real world as every generation of US legal experts could use color of law to work with unconstitutional law just for a few years more ...
If you have anything to look at in the US get a warrant, its 24/7, very tame, rubber stamped and roving....

Re:Worse than nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

So while the previous practice was clearly illegal, this bill makes everything legal

Why do you think it was illegal? This bill regulates the practice.

I know some of you are just seething with anger and hoping somehow it is a Constitutional issue, or hopefully against the law somehow, but you need to wake up. Wiretapping laws decades ago were needed for a reason.

_Maybe_ today we should have further legal protections regulating the collection of information, _MAYBE_. THAT should be the debate, instead of all this crying because you don't like it, it must already be un- or il- something.

Re:Worse than nothing.

[Tom]

The vital question (yes, I'm too lazy to read the bill itself) is whether or not a generic reason is ok.

If you need to specify a reason for each case/individual, that would indeed be a hurdle, because it forces the NSA to actually recognize that individuals exist, not just one big pile of information they can access at will.

Re:Worse than nothing.

[TangoMargarine]

(and don't bother saying "unconstitutional", they tiptoed close to the line but the general opinion is that they didn't cross it).

That "general opinion" depends heavily on who you ask. This is Slashdot; I think the "general opinion" is the exact opposite here.

and for those outside the USA...

[whereiswaldo]

... the NSA has just freed up a bunch of server capacity for spying on _you_.

Names!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who watered it down? Let's get their names out in the open! Hopefully it's still a matter of public record as to who actually formulates our laws.

BFDâ¦.

[cayenne8]

Big Fucking Deal, it passes.

From what I've heard of what passed, not only does it NOT have any teeth to it, but it is written so broadly that with secret judges giving secret interpretations (even the secret judges don't consult with each other I"m led to believe), this could likely give the NSA and other TLA agencies *more* leeway to get creative in the work of crushing the US citizens' rights.

C'mon folks, no matter who is currently in office, D or R, please this time around vote for anyone other than the incumbent, and let's sweep the house and senate clean over the next couple years and start from scratch.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[funwithBSD]

And probably will be circumvented by imperial decre... sorry Presidential Executive order.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[geekoid]

"From what I've heard of what passed,"
heard from who? people with apolitical axe to grind maybe?

let me know when you can accurately say:
"From what I've read of what passed, "

Then we can discuss which part you don't like.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[anagama]

Exactly -- this bill just "legitimizes" the assault on the 4th Amendment. The Constitution is basically dead.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[anagama]

RTFG

"As Feared: House Guts USA Freedom Act, Every Civil Liberties Organization Pulls Their Support"

http://www.techdirt.com/articl...

Re:BFDâ¦.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution is basically dead.

NO NO NO! We still have freedom of the press. Hold on...uh....gotta go... Donald Sterling has found some kidnapped schoolgirls in Antarctica! Later tunes, bitches!

Re:BFDâ¦.

[0111 1110]

C'mon folks, no matter who is currently in office, D or R, please this time around vote for anyone other than the incumbent, and let's sweep the house and senate clean over the next couple years and start from scratch.

Oh god. Not this again. What makes you think the replacements will be any better? This whole "vote for change because change is good" is such bullshit. If you are going to vote at least do it intelligently. It's voting blindly without thought that has gotten us into this situation in the first place.

If you are going to vote for someone at least vote for someone who makes specific promises about how he would vote in this sort of critical law and what he promises to do to himself if he votes the wrong way. Suicide would be a good start. That would apply to Obama because he has broken most of his promises. Fucking liar. I'd probably only vote for someone with zero experience in politics because all experienced politicians are liars. Most lawyers too. So no lawyers either. And if both options are bad then don't fucking vote. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Or vote for a Libertarian or a Socialist or someone else idealistic. At least you'll get more predictable votes from someone who actually believes in something other than making lots of money for themselves in bribes.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[Drishmung]

Right now, voting for someone named Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable Arthur Norman Michael Featherstone SmithNorthgot Edwards Harris MasonFrampton Jones Fruitbat Gilbert 'We'll keep a welcome in the' Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin Tiger-draws Pratt Thompson 'Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head' Darcy Carter Pussycat 'Don't Sleep In The Subway' Barton Mannering Smith could only be an improvement.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[ATMAvatar]

Oh god. Not this again. What makes you think the replacements will be any better? This whole "vote for change because change is good" is such bullshit. If you are going to vote at least do it intelligently. It's voting blindly without thought that has gotten us into this situation in the first place.

No, the situation we are in is the result of a House and Senate with a 90%+ re-election rate despite a 13% approval rating.

The message sent by this is that congressmen can do whatever they like, as they're going to get re-elected no matter how much they work against the public's interests.. It also makes bribery (via gifts, campaign contributions, and lucrative jobs upon leaving office) quite affordable.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[Anonymous Coward]

I glad someone said it..

This is in fact nothing more then political pandering, "the game" as I call it. People are outraged and this wasn't going away as they had hoped. They delayed it several times, and pass a false half-assed bill, at a time when things are shaping up as far as elections.

'Hey people we really care, now you can vote for are sorry shit-for-brain asses' Even more aggravating and pathetic, is how the EFF and ACLU actually supported this. This leads me to believe these two organizations are now part of the problem, as they pucker up and kiss their politicians asses. I didn't even need to see the bill to know it was all a smoke screen. Hopefully the underground and tech press will start striping this bill apart as expose it for what it really is, just another part of 'the game'.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it will be good - then, once all the ties between corporations and illegal alphabet entities are severed, a thorough house-cleaning can commence - use of napalm recommended as it's the only way to be sure, short of nuking from orbit.

Next up, ban corporate -> political -> corporate transfers - end corporate citizenship - end money as speech

Then we *might* have a chance of turning this country around - without reverting to unnecessary violence - the arresting, public trial (all evidence open and shared with the public) and subsequent death sentences for all of the alphabet organizations up through presidents (former and current) for their traitorous actions would be considered very necessary violence - and all within the legal system - I'm not talking illegal actions, I'm talking arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, put to death - all tidy and legal like.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh god. Not this again. What makes you think the replacements will be any better?"

Because, my defeated friend, a brand new party brought to power due entirely to the population's displeasure with the previous party will realize that they had better mind their Ps and Qs least they go out just as fast as they came in. They'll stay careful of what they're doing at least for a few terms. And if they start showing obvious signs of corruption, you replace them again.

It's the constant assumption of pointlessness that lets them do whatever they want, since they know damned well they're going to be voted back in regardless of what they do.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[Aighearach]

That link is a bunch of lies and hyperbole. The ACLU still supports it because some reform is better than none. They're way more important the ones listed, and yet the link claims that every civil liberties group withdrew support.

Shows the quality of the position.

And he was talking about actually reading it and identifying what parts you don't like, NOT just finding a random propaganda link that is against.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[TheRaven64]

a brand new party brought to power due entirely to the population's displeasure with the previous party will realize that they had better mind their Ps and Qs least they go out just as fast as they came in.

That's assuming that it's a new party, and not just a new member of the existing party. Why would you care that you'd be voted out in the next election if you already had some cushy directorships lined up thanks to your work in the current term?

Re:BFDâ¦.

[Talderas]

I'm pretty sure Jon Stewart nailed the problem using Charles Rangel as the poster boy.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[Rockoon]

Did John Stuart detail why its so?

The re-election rate is so high because of gerrymandering, and both parties do it.

Put all the Democrats in one district, and all the Republicans in another, and then one of the effects is that neither Republicans nor Democrats have to worry much about winning their district. Another of the effects is that campaigns are much more polarized. If everyone in your district is majority Republican then you start off shooting right down the middle of that demographic, which doesnt include many Democrats.

Its a false dichotomy of course... voting 3rd party is not a waste of a vote. Voting for the majority candidate is a waste of a vote

Re:BFDâ¦.

[Talderas]

Gerrymandering is only going to matter for general elections. It doesn't provide any indication as to why these incumbents continue to make it through their primaries.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Most of them run unopposed, or if there is competition the competition is marginalized by the the party so that resources aren't wasted on party infighting. Love or hate the Tea Party at least they do put pressure on republican incumbents.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[TangoMargarine]

Sometimes a vote *against* a candidate you detest is more important than a vote *for* a candidate you actually believe in.

Although your opening line seems to kind of contradict the rest of your points, which seem good. If "vote for change" means "vote for the other major party," then yeah, I agree with everything you said.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[cayenne8]

Oh god. Not this again. What makes you think the replacements will be any better?

If nothing else, it would get al the "long timers" out of there. Get rid of the politicians that have turned Federal service into a lifetime career.

Get them out, at least we could somewhat start over if no one has 'seniority' and get the entrenched politics out of there.

That alone would be worth it to me.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[strikethree]

No, the situation we are in is the result of a House and Senate with a 90%+ re-election rate despite a 13% approval rating.

The message sent by this is that congressmen can do whatever they like, as they're going to get re-elected no matter how much they work against the public's interests..

I think you draw an incomplete conclusion there. The conclusion I draw is that individual votes do no matter. Either "they" have found some to influence voters to vote against the voter's own interests or "they" have found a way to rig the election system. Either way, your vote and my vote do not matter. Masses of idiots or fraud allows the people at the top get to do whatever they want regardless of anyone's desires.

121

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's tap the phones of the 121 no-votes and see what those guys are up to.

Re:121

[Jmc23]

Stuff like trying to protect your freedom you idiot!

Don't forget the lobbyists

[rsborg]

We need to fire everyone in Washington DC and reform the crap out of everything. Both sides are wrong here - why vote for a flawed by design bill? It only exists for political posturing for elections.

Remember, term limits and "voting out the bastards" doesn't really mean much if lobbying (aka Bribery) is still funding their replacements. We need to fire everyone, and then keep moneyed interests from simply installing newly-bought idiots.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists

[Archangel Michael]

Here is my fix for Campaign Finance.

1) Non-person entities cannot donate directly to any candidate or cause, but rather must fund their own "campaigns". If say ATT or Google want to help elect people, they can buy their own damn TV spots. "Google supports Harry Reid for senate".

2) Persons can only contribute directly to campaigns for whom they are eligible to vote. Outside influences and PACS can buy their own damn TV spots (NRA, MoveOn, Koch, etc) "NRA supports Mitch McConnell".

3) All advertising must present, who is the primary sponsor (PAC, Lobbying group, etc) with clear details on contributors. Groups wanting to keep their membership "secret" must display "Secret" prominently in their advertisement. "The ad paid for by Mothers Against Dumb Dads --- SECRET"

People have a natural distrust of "secret" organizations.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists

[sexconker]

Here's a better fix:

Ban all campaign, ballot measure, etc. advertising entirely. Write a statement, put it on your webpage, and then shut the fuck up.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists

[geekoid]

4) Donated money can only go to the candidate

5) They can only advertise on the internet

6) Any inaccurate must be published immediately and retracted in public, by the candidate.

7) Only the candidate can buy ads for support. no 3rd parties.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a better fix:

Ban all campaign, ballot measure, etc. advertising entirely. Write a statement, put it on your webpage, and then shut the fuck up.

What. The. Fuck.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists

[CBravo]

Why don't you put this comment on your own website. We will all find it, promise ;-). You prove your own issue: You need a public forum, some call it marketing, to market your opinion.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists

[TheRaven64]

1) Non-person entities cannot donate directly to any candidate or cause, but rather must fund their own "campaigns". If say ATT or Google want to help elect people, they can buy their own damn TV spots. "Google supports Harry Reid for senate".

Here's a simpler one: since it's already illegal for foreign individuals to fund US politicians, how about extending the rule to multinational corporations. Unless your company, all employees, and all assets are based in the USA then you don't get to influence the election. If you meet all of these criteria, then you're just an association of people who are eligible to vote, so go ahead.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists

[sexconker]

Why don't you put this comment on your own website. We will all find it, promise ;-). You prove your own issue: You need a public forum, some call it marketing, to market your opinion.

Because I'm not a public serpent.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists

[sexconker]

What does that have to do with advertising? Advertising isn't speech. It's paid endorsement.
It's supposed to be held to standards covering everything from truth, to content, to placement, to loudness. If a candidate wants a platform on TV they can go and give their own opinion all day long on any channel that will have them. If they want to BUY spots where their only contribution was a "I'm Dick Dickhole and I approve this message" line slapped on at the end, then it's an AD, and it is NOT speech. If they want to call me and ask for my vote, that's speech and it's fine. If they want to robocall everyone with a recording or have volunteers monkey call everyone and read a script, then it's advertising and it's bullshit.

Re:Obama!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember that the Republicans were levelling another country with your taxes, and when you couldn't afford to keep doing that and running social services, they just cut the social services.

Gifting money to the rich isn't socialism, though: they worked hard for the money they're being given. Influencing social policy for your own personal gain isn't easy...

Freedom? USA?

[Anonymous Coward]

USA Freedom Act. Even the name is a fucking joke.

Re:That's

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you worse for his "treachery," given that you now know you're being constantly surveilled in breach of the rights and laws of the nation? Doesn't that make you better off, given that you can now act against these traitors to your nation?

How often does this need pointed out, before the astroturfers give up and fuck off?

It is all window dressing

[FudRucker]

they are not going to stop any of that spying, they are going to collect as much data as possible on as many people as possible, either the bill gets watered down to the point that it is useless, or it gets passed but ignored or a work around renders it useless, those fascist kleptocrats are not giving up anything

Deja Vu

[Torodung]

This reminds me of the CAN SPAM act. Can our congress do nothing to control the smoke filled room policy making? I'm disgusted.

Hope is not lost....

[strangeintp]

It still needs to make it through the Senate.

Re:Hope is not lost....

[shutdown -p now]

Which part of "the majority of both Republicans and Democrats" is not clear? It'll pass with flying colors.

Re:That's (FB, G, O, T)

[Anonymous Coward]

The Snowden effect is that it makes moot that that have something to hide know that they need to do something different now. It's not, from my POV, Facebook and Google and Microsoft (and ...) do much more MASS surve... data gathering, a LOT MORE, so what Snowden has exposed is not something that we didn't already 'know' (the, who else), but that he exposed something that the bad guys didn't know (the, Americans can find me out if I use ...).

You know, even encryption doesn't avoid the meta-data connect-the-dots. The bad guys now know they have to do more.

That is what Snowden did. Get on your Facebook and Twitter and Hotmail/outlook and G-mail and let your friends and followers know. And of course FB, G, O, and T will know you know and know all your contacts know, and ...

Catch Snowden on NBC next Wednesday, 2100 EDT.

We're living in a parody of democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad when a fictional TV show pretty accurately describes the state of our democracy: [starting at 30:50] http://www.nbc.com/revolution/video/declaration-of-independence/2782571#i

Legislative Theater

[jodido]

There's Security Theater, and now we have Legislative Theater. Arguing about whether the law could have been "better" or "stronger" is just playing their game. IT DOESN"T MATTER what the law is. The ruling class--like every minority ruling class in history--will do whatever it needs to to stay in power.

Deeper Underground

[AHuxley]

Over the decades when exposed and required to be shut down: The main operational software and hardware is removed and the teams reassigned.
The methods, data gathered and backups just end up at a different site, branch, agency under as a new or old project.
The classic "Total Information Awareness" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would be a public example of this.

VERY watered down

[Anonymous Coward]

Techdirt has a good writeup about the various things done to water-down this bill. Including legalizing things that had previously been illegal and that the NSA was probably already doing anyway.

It's hard to vote out the Gestapo...

[AHuxley]

Start thinking locally.
Do you need that chat or VOIP product known to decrypt your messages on your computers?
Do you need that free or consumer OS known to decrypt your messages on your computers?
Do you need to invite that hardware vendor known to backdoor your servers next upgrade?
Do you still trust that crypto vendor known to trapdoor your communications system?
Are your staff really fully aware of what tame academia, hardware and software providers offered as robust crypto standards?
Does your historic database really need to be on a cloud with a vendor known to share access to your data?
A whitebox solution with regional expert staff will run hot, be very expensive and you still need a CPU vendor.
If your nations political leadership, tame academics, mil staff are happy to see your productive entrepreneurship given to 5+ other nations for free over decades ...
not much you can do but rethink your own network and computer use.

Rest of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Any word on other human beings that are not US citizens?

Re:BFD

[Bite The Pillow]

On the plus side, anyone who voted for it cannot support anti-Snowden actions without looking completely stupid. That might have meant something back in the days when media asked questions.

But in the days when unlimited funds can create attack messages for anyone, this vote basically says yes to Snowden, and no to either the Obama administration or the Presidency in general depending on which party they want to appeal to.

The political process is slow, and I honestly did not expect even this much so far. I guess that's the power of not just the same story, but evolutions of the same story over the span of months.

And that to me is the real story here. A Friday news flash that gets buried by entertainment news won't do it. But here's a good example of what does work.

So if I believe youre a useless cocksucker

[Anonymous Coward]

It must mean it's true because I really believe it's true.

You sure are a gullible, stupid motherfucker.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting only encourages them.

Final Crapification!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

What I really do not understand is how these bills start out good, then get crapified at the last moment before being voted on??

If you see large support for a bill, then why the hell is someone able to go and change it at the last moment...? I think they need a ballot that has every single revision as a vote. The most votes with a majority vote is winner, simple. Or maybe even a vote on top 2 revisions to be considered before the vote takes place, something better than this B.S.

Fear is Well Deserved

[Anonymous Coward]

After everything that the U.S. has been willing to do in the past decade or so, you still think that members of congress are off limits to the NSA and CIA? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it:

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/history-of-russian-government-agency-the-kgb-part-1.htm

Re:Fear is Well Deserved

[Tom]

After everything that the U.S. has been willing to do in the past decade or so, you still think that members of congress are off limits to the NSA and CIA?

No, I don't.

Unfortunately, I do also believe most of them are spineless, corrupt cowards. A true legislative would go public at the first sign of such attempts and disband the agency in question, with any and all funding withdrawn, effective immediately.

I believe there is a natural tendency of governments towards higher concentrations of power, because of a) human desires and b) higher efficiency (at the low cost of democracy, human rights and such things). So to keep working, the different branches of government need to ascertain their independence from each other regularily.

Unfortunately, no western democracy really has its branches seperated. Judges are appointed by politicians, the executive is elected from among the members of the legislative in many parliamentary democracies, or is a member of the same party as the legislative in republical systems.

If Google and Facebook opposed that law

[Anonymous Coward]

It would not have passed.

Google, Amazon, Facebook, eBay, ... have created enough millionaires and billionaires that they could change Congress's mind, if they gave a shit.

I think they all like NSA taking the heat. By comparison, all the data collection and collation by web companies are a minor problem.