Slashdot Mirror
Senate Bill Would Ban Most Bulk Surveillance
An anonymous reader writes: Today Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced a bill that would ban bulk collection of telephone records and internet data for U.S. citizens. This is a stronger version of the legislation that passed the U.S. House in May, and it has support from the executive branch as well. "The bill, called the USA Freedom Act, would prohibit the government from collecting all information from a particular service provider or a broad geographic area, such as a city or area code, according to a release from Leahy's office. It would expand government and company reporting to the public and reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which reviews NSA intelligence activities. Both House and Senate measures would keep information out of NSA computers, but the Senate bill would impose stricter limits on how much data the spy agency could seek."
I will cheer for you all the way until the first anonymous hold prevents you from advancing to a vote!
Really.
Golly gee, with a name like the "USA Freedom Act," it must be good!
I wonder if anyone's every thought of writing up a "Patriot Act" - that would be doubleplus awesome!
first you were a "patriot"
but now you are "free"
The american people are so easy to mind control, I be their handlers are constantly laughing at them.
Well, since the party whose member is placing the hold has to at least make that known, if there's bipartisan support in the House and the Executive Branch is on board, I don't expect such a hold to go over very well. This might be one of the few things that both parties agree on and that neither party could really use as leverage against the other in an election year, as the public is starting to get upset across the board about it too.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
As a non-American I couldn't care less how much the U.S. government is spying on its citizens. What I'm concerned about is the absence of effort to curb the U.S. spying on non-Americans. I haven't heard my government even acknowledging the fact that the U.S. is going through all our communications. Decentralized Internet is badly needed and nothing seems to be in works...
the softer gentler side of us all, momkind the ultimate in selflessness never abandons us despite being abusively shuffled into obscurity again & again. creation prefers our tears & innocence feature much more than our WMD on credit violence mandate? just guessing...
As someone who is generally an Obama supporter, the executive hasn't been on board the last few times this question came up.
While the changes are good, I do not think they go far enough.
Allowing full monitoring from someone two hops away from a suspect still can involve a lot of people. What if a suspect were to call Time Warner, then I was to call the same number later that day? It could potentially be a very large number. Also what qualifies as being a suspect? It may be that there are a half million suspects, and a majority of the earth's population is two hops away.
It also doesn't remove the First Amendment violations on the National Security Letters.
This is bullshit, what does the stinking government need beyond the information they force US citizens to fill out under penalty of law, out every 10 years its called the Census. We must start FORCING out elected officials to vote and act as we want them too. Not to do as there party dictates.
Jack of all trades,master of none
It's pretty clear at this point that the executive branch can get away with completely ignoring any law they want, without actual repercussion.
Congress fiddles while our separated-powers republic burns. I can't find words for how much I hate Congress and the President for this.
If they ban this surveillance, the powers that benefit from it will just stage another 9/11 disaster and everyone will be clamoring for it again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
It seems far more likely that 9/11 was an inside job by loyal members of the intelligence community rather than some dumb Muslims. I mean, the official story plays out like some Oceans 11/12/13 movie plot. How likely would it be that any of that would happen in such a perfect storm?
Now loyal members of our intelligence community could definitely pull this off. In fact, most actors wouldn't even need to be privy to the entire plan. And once it's all finished, their loyal handlers just put a bullet in the back of their head.
CIA, etc. hijack some planes, turn off transponders, land them, kill the passengers and crew (bullets in heads), send new planes controlled via remote into the buildings, destroy original planes. 10-20 agents could pull this off. Over half of them (if not all but a couple of them) could be executed afterwards. And none but a couple (if not one person) would need to be privy to the overall plan. In fact, dude that was flying remotely the one that crashed in the middle of nowhere probably grounded the plane as he realized what was happening. No problem. His handler was right behind him and put a bullet in his head. Where were all the bodies in that wreckage?
Seems far more likely that Mohamed Jihad and his brothers in arms pulling off something akin to a movie plot. Who benefited the most? The Muslims or the intelligence community?
But nah... Downmod me. No way would the US government lie to the world about something like this.
Of course not! Would you voluntarily give up a tool that was handed to you when you started your job, without a replacement provided?
That's the entire point of having separate branches of government.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I was wondering that too.
So now the question becomes, is this only for show or is there a loophole in the fine print?
I read this and I think: this is great, sounds like exactly what we need.
All the time I'm thinking that I have a dread feeling in my stomach that despite the words ringing true to what I want I know that it will either never make it through, have some obscure loophole that makes it absolutely moot or will simply be ignored by anyone who it restricts. Criminals have a horrible habit of not obeying the law after all.
It must be nice to have faith in your governmnet. Has that ever happened? Serious question.
Don't the NSA report, directly or indirectly, to the President? So if executive branch support a measure to limit bulk surveillance, couldn't they, of their own initiative, direct the appropriate agencies to cancel or modify the mass surveillance programs?
Too late. No freedom, militarized police, STASI all over the country.
Just bend over even more.
1. The President doesn't support this. He's the executive and is over the NSA. If he really wanted to stop bulk data collection he would simply call the NSA and say "hey, quit doing bulk collection". The law is needed specifically because he doesn't support it.
2. Unless the law will include criminal penalties it's of no value. A cursory glance shows that it simply says "hey, don't do that" instead of "hey, don't do that, and if you do it'll be a class _ felony with a minimum penalty of ___". It's interesting how laws made to limit non-government workers *always* have the criminal penalties, and laws that are made to limit government workers always conveniently forget that part. When we start jailing people who break laws like this we'll start making headway.
Do you have ESP?
...it's called the Bill of Rights.
So instead of spying on its own citizens directly, now they'll just use the reciprocal agreements with Germany, England, Australia, etc.
"Hey, England...we'll spy on your citizens if you'll spy on ours."
The US government should be banned from getting data on American citizens that was collected by foreign powers too.
Otherwise, the US could just trade data it gathered on foreigners with other governments who gathered data on Americans.
That loophole needs to be closed.
How about instead, we just pass a law clarifying that the constitution does indeed apply to algorithms?
Just because a robot searched your car does not mean your car was not searched.
i.e. A police officers doing:
C:\directory search batch file.bat
is no different than:
C:\dir
and really... that's what this all comes down to.
The trust is gone (what little there was to begin with). If there's anything we should have all learned in the past 13 months, it's that any bill claiming to curtail surveillance is sure to be so full of loopholes that it will likely only make the situation worse, as proponents will now have yet another law to say supports their activities. "The Senate bill would end the bulk collection authorized by Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act." Ask anyone who follows this issue closely: 215 is the least of the abuses. There are countless other programs that are used for bulk collections, and by only outlawing this one (still skeptical about even that), the intelligence community will just spin it to say the rest have broad support. The whole system needs to be torn down.
Remember Bush pardoning the telcos for their fascist behavior?
they won't, obviously, collect "all data" from any given provider. certain public officials will be excluded thus making it 'legal' for them to collect everything else.
So this would:
> prohibit the government from collecting all information from a particular service provider or a broad geographic
> area, such as a city or area code
Sounds rather specific. My bet is this was very carefully crafted, with help of the NSA to specifically and publically ban a slice of activities so narrow and specific as to stop NOTHING that they are currently doing.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Step 1: Release meaty bill
Step 2a: Gain lots of political points, as media and population favor meaty bill.
Step 2b: Discuss with other politicians, as their votes will be needed.
Step 3: ????? (Always a pre-requisite for profit.)
Step 4: Get everybody on your side, and enjoy longstanding popularity up to 48 hours before the actual vote.
Step 5: Some sub-committee conveniently makes slight alterations, removing all of the meat.
Step 6: EFF complains. Wouldn't it be nice if congress cared?
Step 7: Meatless bill passes with flying colors
Step 8: Enjoy the fruits of success
Step 9: Notice that the population, annoying as it always is, is starting to grumble again
Step 10: Go back to Step 1
I really pay extremely little attention to politics. But I've seen this (or something awfully close to this) before (about this same issue, about the phone meta-data).
I have wondered what makes politicians think they have half a chance of re-election based on the things they have been doing.
I know about the old joke (well, it was a joke for some people anyway) about voting against all current politicians to try to get them out of office, every time. However, it never happens. At least, it hasn't. Before Snowden, I also haven't ever seen the federal government be so hated, for so long, without any corrective steps taken. It will be very interesting to see what happens during the next major national (American) election.
I'd almost think that Obama won't stand a chance of getting re-elected again, thanks to the 22nd amendment to the American constitution which would limit him to two terms in a row. However, I've also been learning not to be so naive.
That's ok, as an American I don't give a shit about you.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
The bill, called the USA Freedom Act (AKA The "Damn, Snowden!" bill)...
Given that the executive branch, that being the POTUS, has never seen a surveillance law it didn't like, I seriously doubt this law would actually impede the government's lust for any and all information on the People.
Besides, the actual implmentation of any law is always the exact opposite of the bill name. My guess, "The USA Freedom Act" means "freedom for the government to do whatever the fuck they want."
-- Will program for bandwidth
and the media for not taking an issue of this over the last 20 years.
they play patsy
They make money by getting viewer to watch ads.
What gets viewers?
Bullshit issues. Issues that anger people.
Is the TV media covering this bill, the ramifications and past abuses by our government?
Fuck no!
When Snowden was caught it wasn't so much what he uncovered but about him personally and whether or not he is a traitor.
distraction.
Currently, the big news is what?
Russia, Gaza, and Fox News is all worried about something about In god we trust on money.
More distraction.
Now, when Bengazi or whatever it was called - don't give a shit - happened, the Republicans and Fox News beat the shit out of and it's still going on. But for something as serious as spying on us Americans? They bitched and moaned a bit but they went after some other distraction bullshit.
Or could it be that it would shine a bit too much light on the W. Bush administration and their power grab for the Executive branch - the biggest ever?
In the meantime, Obama took ALL those powers that the Bush administration grabbed and ran with it!
And the next President will do the same fucking thing.
what will Joe Schmoe worry about? Distraction issues. Abortion, gun rights, "entitlement programs", taxes - even we're paying the lowest I think since the Income Tax was implemented.
See, people do NOT know what Freedom is.
And that's why we should be teaching Civics in school and not code monkey skills to supply cheap local labor to Facebook and Silicon Valley parasites.
Fine print? No, it's in the invisible ink.
Not Congress's fault you didn't get a UV bulb to read it.
I'd like to see an analysis by EFF or ACLU. Laws these days are named so that people will think they do when thing when the often do something else or even the opposite of what they do. There's no details given. I'm betting there are no criminal penalties for breaking this new either. Without that, it's useless.
TFS notes that Obama is behind this bill.
I find this interesting, since as head of the Executive Branch, he can order the NSA to do what this bill requires without bothering with a law, since no law exists requiring the NSA to collect telephone records on everyone.
And if such a law existed, it would be pretty clearly unconstitutional, and thus null and void....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The House bill started out as a strong pro-privacy bill that made a few concessions to NSA spying. By the time it was done with amendments, all that was left were the concessions to NSA spying and a bunch of nice but useless speechmaking. Obama may be talking positively now, but the pro-surveillance folks in the Senate will try to gut the bill, and anything that makes it past them will get trashed in the House-Senate joint resolution process.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
There's not much to support with Obama. The man is a cardboard cut-out.
I find this interesting, since as head of the Executive Branch, he can order the NSA to do what this bill requires without bothering with a law, since no law exists requiring the NSA to collect telephone records on everyone.
Yeah, but it's an election year. This way Congress con vote on something obviously popular to get credit for it. Not much, but it's something - and more than if Obama just exeuctive ordered it. Just a thought...
I find this interesting, since as head of the Executive Branch, he can order the NSA to do what this bill requires without bothering with a law, since no law exists requiring the NSA to collect telephone records on everyone.
However, he can't order the next President to continue his policies. There's a lot to be said for pinning these things down so that they can't be changed on a whim.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I can hear old Turtle-face McConnell now saying this is an election-year stunt by the Democrats to get votes. It's the same excuse he's used for filibustering other worthwhile Senate bills; never mind that it's a good idea and would be good for the country, it would make the Democrats look good and that'd cost Republicans elections, so they'll stop it from even coming to a vote.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm fairly sure we have secret laws to do with National Security; those are a post-WTC innovation, so it's entirely possible that there is in fact a law requiring same that Obama can't do much about.
Mind you, I don't think he cares much about civil liberties either.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Ok first off, the agencies in question repeatedly have shown no compunction what-so-ever to following ANY laws. They certainly will not follow this one. On top of that all they have to do is say "National Security" and the point it moot. So someone please tell me why this is anything other than political band-standing, a complete waste of taxpayer money, and completely idiotically pointless.
US FAP Act.
I mean we all know it's just going to be a giant politcal circlejerk that leaves the citizens with messy faces :)
Do you even know what you're trying to say, exactly?
Maybe this is all a strategy to get a republican in office in 2016, screw things up even worse; so that Cory Booker can run on a reform platform and win in a landslide. I swear he's being groomed even more than Obama was.
The constitution is the law you dumbass. No other law is needed or is superior.
The fourth amendment and other [un/en]umerated rights prohibits search and seizure upon your life without reasonable suspicion and backed by warrant.
Bulk metadata includes YOU, therefore it is illegal.
That's because your government and peoples lick the balls of the US for their very existance.
Grow some nuts, then you won't care about the US.
I find it interesting that ALL OF THIS is covered by the Fourth Amendment. WE shouldn't need new legislation to uphold it.
Good-bye
As someone who's seen a cardboard cutout, I understand completely. Hell, it's pretty obvious what he means.
Of course, if Obama is a cardboard cutout because he takes orders rather than issues them, then it's a reasonable assumption that the same personality defect exists in most of our elected officials.
Probably a lot of the appointed ones, too.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures", the NSA seems to think their information retrieval is perfectly reasonable, as does the SCOTUS.
And according the the constitution you're fond of citing, the SCOTUS has final word on that.
I'll believe they are even remotely serious when some of the other garbage legislation gets repealed. We can go back to the days before 9/11 when we actually had some respect for rights freedoms and American values. Repeal these and pass the USA Freedom act: FISA Amendments Act of 2008 USA Patriot Act
This bill is entirely superficial. It's nice as a first step but the "two hops" bit makes it essentially meaningless pending further significant reform. It can be twisted to allow the level of surveillance we see today and it can be twisted that way in secret courts and closed meetings by bribed and blackmailed politicians. This is not the real reform that we need.
Ends the secret courts. Ends the closed door meetings. Establishes new definitions, clear ones to be used across all laws to stop the bullshit about "keeping America safe" by abusing its freedom. We need real reform not this lip service for the masses shit.
I would support a bill that
Hailing this as an effective law on its own is a mistake and the freedom of the United States is in serious jeopardy. Let's not step off that cliff.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Oh, so he's impotent this week, not a tyrant. Thanks for the clarification.
USA Freedom Act? fools! don't they know i have my decoder ring that tells me what it's really about? here's a clue.. whatever they tell you it is... it's the opposite.
"The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out" - George Carlin
That's an excellent point. The executive, including the NSA, reports to the president. If the president wants them to stop doing something, he doesn't need a law - he can just say "stop doing that". We've seen him do exactly that, he said "stop deporting illegal aliens under 18 years old", and they stopped. Therefore, we know that they aren't doing anything the president cares to stop. He would have already stopped it if he wanted to.
Probably, the extremely specific language of this bill bans something they weren't doing anyway. They aren't allowed to spy on a specific area code, which is fine since they are spying on all customers of the telecom, not a specific area code.
So, let me get this straight... the 4th Amendment needs additional "refinement" to put teeth in its bite
I don't think it needs it, but adding, "under punishment of draw-and-quartering" to the end might cause the oligarchs to take note.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Oh, so he's impotent this week, not a tyrant. Thanks for the clarification.
IMO, they (all of them) are impotent every week, because they don't actually come up with anything themselves; rather, they push the legislation their lobbyist friends/corporate masters/what-have-you tell them to push for.
But thanks for making it obvious that you only think in partisan terms. Surprised you didn't call me a racist, too.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The claim is that the information belongs to a third party so it isn't a search on you but a regulation on business. This would fit the liberal mindset that businesses are not people and have no rights but the effect is the same as a search on you.
This is why the US constitution is not a living document. Outside of reporting requirements about the business itself, any government mandate for information about others is and always will be a search without a warrant. It would be different if the information was publicly available but it isn't and there is a severe expectation of privacy involved.
I'm sorry, where is N844AA again?
Yeah, you don't know either.
I read through this bill, and not only do I find a lack of criminal penalties, I also don't find a means of independent confirmation of compliance, especially considering that these agencies have lied to Congress in the past. And, at the end of it, this bill extends the Patriot Act another two years from 2015 to 2017.
I like the idea of having regular attempts at declassifying FISA court decisions, but it says "where possible" and doesn't say who gets to define what's possible. I have a feeling that "if the public learns of this, they'll hate us and we might lose funding" would make declassification impossible, and "if this guy's defense learns about this, they might actually be able to defend him and we want him imprisoned" would also make declassification impossible. I didn't see a provision to ensure that the people who decide about the declassification are not people invested in the secret activity who would use the decision making ability to obtain outcomes in a manner bypassing the legal and political systems.
It's a real shame that the Supreme Court doesn't really agree with you.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes they are really only part of the intelligence community and report to each other. Mass surveillance programs brings new funding and political standing in that growing community. To have data and present it before other agencies is the only political win. No more doing limited support work of other appropriate agencies, via mass surveillance programs they get to set and shape real missions.
A change, new role, more power and more funding over other traditional agencies.
The problem is nations or groups worth real surveillance have be aware of the UK/US telco tech efforts since the 1950-60's so costly mass surveillance is the only method to keep the funds flowing and projects growing.
Will domestic mass surveillance be stopped? No it will be renamed, offered as support for other law enforcement tasks, hidden deep in the mil or passed to the UK or Canada. After a few project name changes all will be good again as it was after legal questions in the 1970's.
"Church Committee"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It makes searching domestic telco data legal under the "reasonable articulable suspicion" part. :)
A few hops of friends or the wrong net logs or phone history and most people could be found to be an "agent of a foreign power, associated with an agent of a foreign power, or "in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power"".
Then you get all the metadata legally. The old standard of a "reasonable articulable suspicion" is much lowered by easy new domestic color of law
No judge needed and you get the first two hops of tracking friends/family for free. The "foreign power" part ensures any contact with the outside world is an instant total data collection win. Bulk collection is now legal and the laws around it weaker re your internet or financial records. The three hop 'the corporate store" collections showed the real past efforts safe from any Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The House's NSA bill could allow more spying than ever. You call this reform? (26 March 2014)
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
Raiding the "Corporate Store": The NSA's Unfettered Access to a Vast Pool of Americans' Phone Data (08/02/2013)
https://www.aclu.org/blog/nati...
Welcome to the legal lock box of all your calls and aspects of your net use over decades.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Isn't it interesting how Obama is using executive power to do all kinds of things and ignoring laws that he doesn't like (ex: immigration laws, Obamacare mandates, etc), but when something like this falls clearly within his power he does nothing?
We need an official piece of legislation that specifically bans bulk collection of telephone records and internet data for U.S. citizens for plausible deniability.
I'd feel so much safer.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
We already know this bill won't work. The executive branch can stop the spying at any time, just by giving an order. Therefore we know the executive branch LIKES the spying on everyone, and will work to keep it going. So if they are supporting this bill then this bill can't have any real limits on the spying.
If the (current) President of the USA is willing (and able) to ignore the Constitution of the USA, why do you think the next President would follow a mere law?
The NSA doesn't give two shits about any law.
too bad you don't have proof that:
1) shows you are being spied on by the NSA and/or a bunch of other three letter agencies
2) isn't covered by national security concerns
national security concerns = jedi mind trick that only works on judges "this evidence does not exist"
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
At least on the surface we'll feel justice is being upheld
MacPro 4,1 2.66GHz/Radeon HD 4870/Mac OS X 10.6.x
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016
Bush did it on a near daily basis, with a lot more volatile stuff (including this EXACT stuff), why do you pretend like you're surprised? Or maybe you just have a very very short term memory?
Pardon me if I fail to take offense to the opinion of an angry little child.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Oh, I forgive you for that. You're just a shitty human being and apparently inclined to never overcome that. Not everyone can be a decent person.
Like I said, I don't take offense to the opinions of angry adolescents.
Which this "I'm rubber and you're glue" comment of yours kind of cements in my mind as being the actual case, and not just a metaphor for your piss-poor inability to have an adult conversation that doesn't degrade into playground insults.
I'm going to just flat out ignore you now, as I'm becoming more and more certain that just talking to you is a COPPA violation.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If Obama's actual position is not to support the bill, he may do so anyway for good publicity if he knows it will not pass anyway. The two parties do this all the time in the House and Senate when it is known that a Bill will not pass but it is advantageous for some members to vote for it anyway.