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."

13 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Alright! Go Senate bill by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I will cheer for you all the way until the first anonymous hold prevents you from advancing to a vote!

  2. Re:Alright! Go Senate bill by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  3. For domestic use only by xfizik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:For domestic use only by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Too fucking bad. As an American, I'm quite comfortable with our intelligence agencies keeping tabs on the rest of the world. I want them watching you.

      Yea, well, as an American who gives a fuck about both fiscal responsibility and how Americans are perceived abroad, I respectfully disagree with your idiotic position.

      There's no point spending money watching people who don't do anything worth watching.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  4. What's the point? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Who does the NSA report to? by Garfong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  6. We already have a bill... by Bartles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it's called the Bill of Rights.

  7. um by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. How long did that take? by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"
  9. becasue there's no money in it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  10. Smells like BS by tomkost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Alright! Go Senate bill by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  12. Re:Alright! Go Senate bill by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    It's a real shame that the Supreme Court doesn't really agree with you.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.