Slashdot Mirror


Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

Robotron23 writes: The latest attempt at NSA reform has been prevented from passage in the Senate by a margin of 58 to 42. Introduced as a means to stop the NSA collecting bulk phone and e-mail records on a daily basis, the USA Freedom Act has been considered a practical route to curtailment of perceived overreach by security services, 18 months since Edward Snowden went public. Opponents to the bill said it was needless, as Wall Street Journal raised the possibility of terrorists such as ISIS running amok on U.S. soil. Supporting the bill meanwhile were the technology giants Google and Microsoft. Prior to this vote, the bill had already been stripped of privacy protections in aid of gaining White House support. A provision to extend the controversial USA Patriot Act to 2017 was also appended by the House of Representatives.

24 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. So basically by magsol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A watered down version of the original bill with the name "FREEDOM" in the very title still couldn't pass muster once the WSJ put the words "terrorist" and "ISIS" next to it.

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    1. Re:So basically by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Libertarians don't admit that because they typically don't admit to voting republican in the first place.

    2. Re:So basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Libertarianism is just Big Government renamed to Big Government Inc., with less accountability to the people.

      Power always finds a vacuum.

    3. Re:So basically by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Libertarianism is just Big Government renamed to Big Government Inc., with less accountability to the people.

      This is why most of us grow out of our Libertarian phase by our mid-20s.

    4. Re: So basically by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This happened now because the Democrats knew it would fail (if they'd thought it would succeed, they'd have pushed it BEFORE the elections just past), and wanted to get the good publicity for being AGAINST THE NSA!!!

      The Republicans voted against it because the Democrats were for it.

      Neither Party's position had anything to do with their opinions about the issue (they're both in favour of the status quo) - it was a purely tactical vote.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:So basically by meustrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the entire government became Libertarian today, it would take less than 10 years for corporations to take total control of governance and we'd have just as much (or probably more) squashing of individual liberties, but no longer any accountability to voters. There are many powerful players in society and I'm not one of them. Does it make me a crony capitalist or a welfare queen when I decide I'd rather the power go to those I can vote out of office than those I can't?

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    6. Re:So basically by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Corporations might have less resources to dedicate to lobbying in light of actually having to compete again, especially since the current monopolistic environment in many industries has made competence no longer a useful trait to possess.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:So basically by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The implicit theoretical side effect of libertarianism is that the wealthy, those with the means and resources, would do every well and those with out wouldn't. If you don't have people paying taxes for schools, libraries, roads, etc. How do things get better? When you've got concentrated wealth, what's stopping the wealthy from taking over?

      Violent insurrection is a fine idea in that case, but, I wouldn't bet on it.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    8. Re:So basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Republicans vote because, "I got mine, fuck everyone else."

      Libertarians vote because, "Roads, schools, hospitals, and fire departments are big Government, and therefore bad."

    9. Re:So basically by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good to see Illiberals target libertarians on a regular basis now... Only 10 years ago or so, we were simply dismissed with mild amusement.

      There is hope for America yet.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:So basically by crunchygranola · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Libertarian philosophy is the most self-consistent of all available.

      Quite possibly. I would prefer a reality consistent philosophy, especially since Libertarianism makes extravagant claims about economics which is very much an empirical activity.

      It requires the fewest "common-sense" exceptions to be practical.

      reality-denying assumptions.

      Oh my, no. Libertarianism and its Hayekist pseudo-economics twin are quite aggressive about denying the importance of basing beliefs of reality. Can you say "Praxeology"?

      LIbertarians and Hayekists hold that their axiomatic principles are the true basis of perfect morality, the best of all possible moral codes, and that social, political and economic doctrines can, indeed must, be derived directly from them without contaminating the matter with social or economic data.

      If you dispute with a Libertarian about the feasibility, and desirability of their proposals, you will shortly find them trying to derail the discussion from practical effects to an effort to educate you about the perfection of their axioms.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  2. Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember that ISIS is our enemy now. They have always been our enemy.

    Ignore those who say they used to be our ally in Syria and we were sending them weapons and aid. They want the T E R R O R I S T S to win!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They(and their constituent subgroups) were never our ally in Syria. The groups we have given material support to in Syria have ended up fighting both Assad and Isis, which is just what Assad wants: rebels fighting each other over ideological differences are rebels not ousting him from office. There have even been accusations that he strategically ceded the most rebellious territories to ISIS so that international support for his being in power waxes.

      ISIS got the American military equipment they did by stealing from Iraqis who abandoned their posts.

    2. Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the US, they'll know where the voters & rabble rousers are.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Idealistic answer: We shouldn't be fine with anyone doing it.
      Cynical answer: African warlords haven't used the gruesome execution of American's (and American Allies) for propaganda purposes.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unrealistic answer: Invading other countries to play world police will fix the problem.
      Idealistic answer: Government thugs shouldn't be using emotional propaganda to manipulate Americans into supporting yet another war in the middle east that will accomplish a whole lot of nothing except to waste our money.

  3. Bill Rejected with Bi-Partisan agreeemnt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    A couple more Republican's voted against it than Democrats.
    Obamacare passed without one Republican vote in the House or the Senate. When was that last called a Strictly Partisan Bill?
    Have fun assigning blame to the Republicans, but its a Democrat in the White House that is violating our privacy, and can stop any second he wants to.
    It's a Democrat in the White House that has expanded the intrusion on our privacy to new and unimagined levels in America.

    1. Re:Bill Rejected with Bi-Partisan agreeemnt by pr0t0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll start this off by stating I'm non-partisan and have no particular party affiliation. That said, the AC above is being disingenuous at best.

      Domestic surveillance of the American populace by the NSA as almost certainly been in place since its inception, but it didn't really come into full-force until Bush signed the order to begin domestic spying on Oct.4, 2001. (see https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying... say that its reached "new and unimagined levels" under the current administration is true, but only because the program has grown and expanded steadily since 2001.

      But all of that is history to be rewritten by those with the motivation to do so, and relearned by those with short memories. As Americans, our forefathers built a nation upon the idea that we could create and maintain a country free of political tyranny; that those with power could not subjugate those without; that as humans, we have the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that its laws will provide justice and protection for all its citizenry; and that those citizens will be brave in the face of those who would try to take those ideas from us, and fight to preserve what we have built.

      The Senate had the chance to take a stand to honor the sacrifices made by so many, and everything that we've fought and bled for 238 years; but they did not. Perhaps that is fine. Perhaps ISIS, and Al-Qaeda before them, have shown us that the idea of America is a false one. That all it takes to shake our country to its foundation is to sneak in and blow up some buildings. Maybe we were delusional in thinking that we could really ever be free? Maybe it's all been romanticized through movies, literature, and rewritten history books; and that we never really were a "land of the free and home of the brave". Maybe that's just song lyrics. Maybe it is the best form of government on the planet, or maybe that doesn't matter because it's government of and by an animal driven by greed and fear. And maybe it's always been that way since we came out of the caves.

      That's what I take away from this vote, and all the other votes on all the other measures that either erode our freedoms, or prevent that erosion from happening. That it doesn't matter what we do, no form of government can overcome our failings as species.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
  4. Well of course... by advocate_one · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ISIS will be running amok in the US... the FBI and CIA will be recruiting and funding gullible fools to do these "acts"... all so they can catch them and say look ISIS is running amok...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Dems (including Obama) expanded and extended the patriot act at a time when they could have pushed it through with little resistance.
     
    As much as the talking heads are going to try to make this seem like a partisan issue the fact of the matter is that there is heavy bi-partisan support for controlling the slaves of the USA and any resistance to this is largely lip service to keep the sheep filling the party coffers.
     
    How many times do we have to go through the "It's the Democrats!" "No, no, it's the Republicans" mantra before we get sick of the game and smash the established sacred idols of the jackass and the elephant? We, The People, have become of the dog chasing its own tail. The sad thing is that the vast majority think that they're fighting the good fight when they're just being kept busy while the real powers that be loot and pillage.

  6. Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those dummies.

    From the WSJ article: "the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, disclosed in September that terrorists tracked by U.S. intelligence services have started encrypting their communications in ways that defeat detection, and that the government has lost track of several."

    Not sure how the continued bulk collection is going to help anyone.

  7. Re:Thanks Obama... by mean+pun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trying to imply that Obama is the good guy in the mess is pure bullshit.

    He was mocking the astroturfed memes that blame Obama for every perceived wrong in the world, even if the supposed wrong or its justification makes you spin-dizzy. But you knew that.

    Obama is not responsible for this law initiative or this down vote. That does not mean Obama is the good guy in the NSA-powers scandal, it only means that Obama is not responsible for this law initiative or this down vote.

    Similarly, the Republicans are responsible for this down vote. That does not mean they are solely to blame for the NSA-powers scandal, or that everything should be explained in terms of Democrats versus Republicans, it only means that in this case the Republicans are responsible for this down vote.

  8. Re:Thanks Obama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, Obama has deported *more* illegal aliens than his predecessor. The ones that aren't being deported aren't being deported because the *LAW* says they're entitled to an asylum hearing, but the courts which handle those hearings are *beyond* understaffed because Congress won't do it's job regarding appointments to those courts.

    Obama wrote an executive order delaying *enforcement* of those deadlines. Republicans are all upset about those executive orders, even as they argue for those *same* delays, but won't actually put a bill to effect those delays up for a vote.

    On the third point, yes, Obama could, 'with the stroke of a pen' write an executive order to disallow what the NSA is doing. He may or may not 'want to'. However, much of what they're doing is *expressly* legal according to the law as written (even if those laws may not necessarily be Constitutional) due to the incompetence of Congress in passing laws which they haven't read and didn't understand. Likewise, Congress could 'with the stroke of a pen' make what the NSA is doing expressly *illegal*, but they haven't, and they won't because one party wants to be able to blame Obama for it. In fact blaming Obama is *much* more important to that party's congress-critters than actually *doing their freaking job*.

  9. Re:Hmmm .... by Maritz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My answer is that both parties have decided that security at any costs, and privacy be damned is the way of the future.

    While I hope my cynicism is misplaced, I personally don't think they give a fuck about security. If they did, they'd do the math and realise there are higher priorities in terms of preventable deaths. What they give a fuck about is power. Specifically, getting it, keeping it, and increasing its scope.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.