Slashdot Mirror


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."

48 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Slow clap by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 5, Funny

    *clap* *clap* *clap*

    --
    In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    1. Re:Slow clap by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    2. Re:Slow clap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

    3. Re:Slow clap by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3

      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?

    4. Re: Slow clap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Slow clap by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    6. Re:Slow clap by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    7. Re: Slow clap by SydShamino · · Score: 2

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

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    8. Re:Slow clap by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      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)

    9. Re:Slow clap by Cornwallis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Slow clap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:Slow clap by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  2. Told you that you were serfs by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Wait.

    Even serfs had the right to have their own advocate.

    You're not serfs.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Told you that you were serfs by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Told you that you were serfs by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Told you that you were serfs by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Told you that you were serfs by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      This site has become such an embarrassment.

    5. Re:Told you that you were serfs by ExecutorElassus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  3. Speak Truth to Power by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Speak Truth to Power by kruach+aum · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Speak Truth to Power by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    3. Re:Speak Truth to Power by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

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

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

    4. Re:Speak Truth to Power by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. who cares? by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another case of the fox guarding the hen house.

  5. Re:A step in the right direction by ilikenwf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:A step in the right direction by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    In C++, your friends can see your privates.
  7. Re:Obviously: by ilikenwf · · Score: 2

    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.

  8. Re:A step in the right direction by ilikenwf · · Score: 2

    And the Judiciaries.

  9. Re:A step in the right direction by lance423 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. Deeper Underground by WarJolt · · Score: 2

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

  11. Distraction by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. It's hard to vote out the Gestapo... by Grog6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    .

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:It's hard to vote out the Gestapo... by Tom · · Score: 2

      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".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  13. The bill sucks. Trust Amash on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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"

  14. Worse than nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  15. Re:A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  16. BFDâ¦. by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:BFDâ¦. by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    2. Re:BFDâ¦. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:BFDâ¦. by anagama · · Score: 2

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

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:BFDâ¦. by anagama · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFG

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

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

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    5. Re:BFDâ¦. by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  17. Don't forget the lobbyists by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Don't forget the lobbyists by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Don't forget the lobbyists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  18. Re:A step in the right direction by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    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."

  19. Re:Obviously: by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  20. Re:A step in the right direction by flanders123 · · Score: 2

    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.