McConnell Introduces Bill To Extend NSA Surveillance

jriding sends word that the majority leader of the U.S. Senate has introduced a bill that would extend the surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act until 2020: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a bill Tuesday night to extend through 2020 a controversial surveillance authority under the Patriot Act. The move comes as a bipartisan group of lawmakers in both chambers is preparing legislation to scale back the government's spying powers under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. It puts McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the bill’s co-sponsor, squarely on the side of advocates of the National Security Agency’s continued ability to collect millions of Americans’ phone records each day in the hunt for clues of terrorist activity.

Comments

republicrats

[Anonymous Coward]

or better known as assholes

Re:republicrats

[g0bshiTe]

R or D doesn't matter if they agree to allow this type of bullshit they are assholes.

Seriously how much are we spending on the witch hunt for terrorists?

Can they show results of thwarted attacks to merit such spending? If not the assholes should be removed from office.

On a side note I'd be interested to find out if there are any ties between these people and those that have the contracts to provide hardware for this project.

Re:republicrats

[gewalker]

You are right the R or D matters little. The reasons are actually pretty simple.

Both parties threaten their junior members to tow the party line or they will work against them next election. And of course, holding power becomes the most important thing to members over time as the perks are without parallel, esp. power and ego stroking.

Majority of congresscritters don't really care that much about rule of law or the opinion of their constituents.

The reelection rates are so high that their is little actual reason for them to change their ways.

D & R do have different issues, e.g., Rs like guns, Ds like abortion on demand. But they share more in common, desire for power, using gov. to solve all problems, discounting personal liberty.

Re:republicrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, it does matter. The GOP party leaders and their conservative faction (i.e. non-Tea Party, non-Libertarian) fetishize the military and security establishment. And they will _always_ defend and fund the NSA and similar organizations, no matter what they tell the public, or what the public demands. These leaders are more heavily involved with the defense industry than most politicians, and their electorate is blinded by the notion that the military and police can do no harm (unless they're trying to take your guns way), and gripped more than most by politics of fear.

Yes, the Democrats supported the Patriot Act and its subsequent renewal. They were more than complicit. But you simply cannot equivocate all the various factions. And in this case, the heart of the problem lies squarely in the GOP camp, along with a few outliers (e.g. Diane Feinstein, who is considered a hawk and well outside Democratic and liberal circles on this issue).

I'm tempted to defend Obama here by saying that if Bush were still in office, he'd probably have a televised national speech explaining why the NSA needs these powers to prevent a WMD attack or something. And by contrast, Obama has not publicly come out in favor supporting renewal. However, Obama is clearly working behind the scenes to push renewal. OTOH, every president inevitably fights to hold onto and expand their powers. It's the nature of the office, so it's not worth drawing a distinction between R & D, here. What we can do is blame Congress for clearly abrogating their responsibility of reigning in the executive.

Re:republicrats

[thaylin]

People wanted to do it before 9/11 as well, what stopped them at the time?

Re:republicrats

[Bonzoli]

The Real question is what is in these to politicians closets that they do NOT want someone(NSA) to accidentally slip to the press? That is the strategy of the NSA when they spot an enemy or a useful pawn.

That or they are the hidden beneficiaries via these hidden contracts to hidden purchases to hidden budgets for hidden agendas.

Re:republicrats

[Anonymous Coward]

ZERO actual terrorists (criminals) worth a shit imprisoned.

ALL your privacy STOLEN.

You and your friends in jail for a little weed, unpaid tickets, bitcoin, and whatever other victimless crime they dream up.

Military industrial corp complex... country sunk deeper in debt trillions a year chasing nonexistant vapors.

INNOCENT PEOPLE MURDERED BY AMERICAN MILITARY / CIA.

MANDANTORY 5 YEAR TERM LIMITS FOR ALL CONGRESS.

Re:republicrats

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to be a single issue voter, you just need to prioritize your issues. For example, for me it might be:

1) Against surveillance state.
2) Free trade.
3) Less regulation
4) Small government

Regarding #1, the Democrats are the better bet. Regarding #2, at least in the past 25 years the Democrats have supported free trade about as well as Republicans. #3 leans slightly in favor of Republicans, even though they nix many regulations I think should be necessary, including certain (but not all) financial industry regulations, and net neutrality; and unfortunately they still support morality regulations. #4 leans heavily in favor of the Democrats, because while Democrats support social agencies, it's been Republican support for the defense and security industries that has really exploded the size and cost of government in the past 15 years, for almost no social gain whatsoever.

Party platforms on policy don't matter nearly as much as _actual_ policy.

The situation could easily change. I'd have no problem voting Republican in the future. But as it currently stands, and based on a weighting of all those factors and more, I basically try to vote a Democratic ticket at the federal level.

I'm familiar with the Arrow Paradox regarding prioritized ordering and voting. But simply because some method is proven to be technically impossible in all cases doesn't mean it's not functional or practical in actuality.

Re:republicrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Even worse - it's not that the original spelled a word wrong, they picked the wrong homophone.

Re:republicrats

[theArtificial]

Nothing but an attack on the intelligence of the poster based on....a single fucking word.

It's not so much that it's a word, but a phrase which subtly changes the meaning. My hunch is it's a phrase they've heard and not read. As always the devil is in the details. Have you heard someone slip up with their units (TB and KB)? An innocent slip or not it makes them sound foolish in a technical discussion, likewise using a phrase improperly taints the points they're making and brings into question and how informed they are. Perception is reality. Without people pointing this crap out, how will it get better? The use of irregardless is on the rise ffs.

Online posts are such absurd crapshoots of appeals to authority and opinion as fact, even people (myself included) who seem to know what they're talking about spout so much profound misinformed nonsense and outright fantasy it's hilarious to take anything read online seriously. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, nobody.

Re:republicrats

[LoyalOpposition]

I'm tempted to defend Obama here by saying that if Bush were still in office, he'd probably have a televised national speech explaining why the NSA needs these powers to prevent a WMD attack or something. And by contrast, Obama has not publicly come out in favor supporting renewal. However, Obama is clearly working behind the scenes to push renewal.

So...you're advocating against transparency?

~Loyal

Re:republicrats

[Noah Haders]

At the very least I hope you found it helpful to learn the proper spelling of "toe the line". It's like a bunch of runners at the beginning of a race, think of it that way. "Tow the line" is more of a speedboat analogy, I'm not sure how it applies.

Maybe others found this helpful as well.

Note: not the GP AC.

Re:republicrats

[donkwich]

Are you really trying to justify being irritatingly pedantic in order to somehow enhance the discussion? All it has accomplished is this timewasting derail.

Online posts are such absurd crapshoots of appeals to authority and opinion as fact, even people (myself included) who seem to know what they're talking about spout so much profound misinformed nonsense and outright fantasy it's hilarious to take anything read online seriously. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, nobody.

Keeping that in mind, maybe it's just better to let this minor meaningless slip-up go?

Re:republicrats

[Rigel47]

To say nothing of how the republicans literally fall over themselves to come off as the bigger Israeli boot licker. It was disgusting to see them swarming Netanyahu on the floor of the Congress like a bunch of teenage girls at a Bieber concert. It was simply unseemly and undignified. Now any criticism of Israel is considered absolute heresy in the Republican party.

Re:republicrats

[LessThanObvious]

It's a conflict they just don't understand. Yes, you can know more if you spy on all human interaction, but that isn't the point. It's better to not know some stuff that could be known, so that all of the innocent people can communicate freely and without reservation. I'm much more frightened by totalitarians than terrorists. I can put it no better than this: The Loss of liberty is worse than the threat of terror.

Re:republicrats

[The Grim Reefer]

The use of irregardless is on the rise ffs.

So is the rampant use of acronyms.

Re:republicrats

[SkOink]

Another way to put it:

D and R are both F'ing us in the A

Re:republicrats

[RabidReindeer]

For those who haven't yet learned, you "toe the line" because it comes from the idea that some arbitrary line drawn on the floor is the limit that your toes must not cross. Failure to observe that limit has severe consequences.

You can see this concept in operation when Alex is inducted into prison in "A Clockwork Orange" and he was quite literally forced to toe the line.

To "tow a line" sounds like for some absurd reason you're dragging a rope behind you. It doesn't have nearly the same chilling effect.

Now children, do I have to explain why "free rein" and "free reign" are different, too? Or did you loose my meaning?

Re:republicrats

[RabidReindeer]

People wanted to do it before 9/11 as well, what stopped them at the time?

Because people still believed in Freedom back then. More or less.

Re:republicrats

[rtb61]

Just a reminder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.... So http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.... Good English means toe does actually work better than tow. So toe the line when it comes to English especially when using idioms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..., otherwise the 'm' becomes a 't'.

Re:republicrats

[TheCarp]

First, I didn't make the original comment, so much for your assumptions.

Secondly, I am well aware of that, and your comment is a perfect example of exactly what I am talking about. The original poster used the appropriate phrase in spoken conversation, an idiomatic expression which is well understood and even common. He clearly understood what he was talking about.

Now you, without even bothering to see who said what, actually claim that spelling has shit to do with understanding?

I read the original comment, it was pretty fucking clear to me.

However, and really this is the point. Noticing a grammatical or spelling error is nothing worth being a jackass about, and it certainly gives you nothing to be condescending about. You just performed a task at the level of a word processor....good job, you want a fucking gold star for being the smart kid?

You want to disagree or poke fun at someone's thoughts, hey, I have no quarrel with you, hell, troll em good. However, if all you have is picking on someone for a poor turn of phrase, I just want you to know, you aren't bringing much to the table to be smug about. You just performed a task at the level of a cheap word processor. Good job, you mad nobody gives you gold stars for spelling anymore?

Re: republicrats

[gordo3000]

There has been amazing commentary on why this is. The largest, and most unified group of republican voters are evangelical Christians and within that group, the existance of Israel is seem as a prerequisite to the second coming.

Being all for Israel is a less controversial stance than many others that still panders to a key bloc.

Re:republicrats

[TheCarp]

See, and that is the problem right there. Its so easy to see the problems, and you are right. The prison and military industrial complexes, as well as several others, are a huge problem but.... and this is a Ron Jeremy hairy ass but.... there is no way anything remotely as simple as "Term Limits" is going to fix shit.

You think the big industries can't find bodies to fill seats on a more regular basis?

The bigger problem, really, is fundamentally flawed structure that isn't scaling well, especially since entire industries have grown up around exploiting its weaknesses for profit in one way or another. It is a a deep house made of many many cards.

Take the disasterous war on drugs and particularly pot. When it was made illegal, it wasn't actually even considered a serious drug of abuse. Hell, I have read the congressional records on the first marijuana law which included this exchange "Mr Speaker, what is marijuana?" "I don't know, some narcotic".

Some of the most vocal proponents of the law were people who worked for the FBN, the precursor of the DEA... the people who had just seen prohibition die and were scared for their jobs. It was essentially a coalition of federal workers worried about their jobs and a few industrialists who stood to profit. The AMA even sent a doctor to the Senate hearings to advise against passing the bill!

Now, some 80 years later, how many people have been arrested? How many shot? How many houses and cars repossessed? There are more marijuana smokers than the next 3 major illicit drugs...combined. How many police officers, how many probation officers, how many prison gaurds, drug testing lab technitions.....all have jobs because we arrest and charge adults for smoking a plant.

Its disgusting but, as high as the ideals of this system are, it is incapable of dealing with them. Its incapable of stopping the spending of billions upon billions on military projects we don't need for adversaries we don't have.....because these are diseases eat at the very fabric of the system.

Shit, the DEA openly claims "Parallel Construction" is a legal tactic for "protecting sources" when the reality is, the source they are protecting is the mass surveillance that the people likely wouldn't approve of if they knew...and it works because the system has exhausted its defenses against uncontrolled growth. The loopholes are found....

If a the Police can guide a constructed evidence trail to the courts, then, there is no such thing as a poisonous tree anymore. Their entire answer to mass surveillance is now "anything we don't tell you about is ok".

This system is nearly entirely ownend by tumors of its own creation. Its not any one of these, its all of these. Its the Prison system often enlarged to create jobs and win votes or for private profit, which results in gaurds unions who then lobby for strict laws.... its the military contractors who farm out work to multiple districts to make every project political suicide to kill.... its just so many special interests with so many perverse alignments that its like the patient has lived so long he is more tumor than man.

Re:republicrats

[pixelpusher220]

I'd say your argument is fatally flawed. If McConnell and Feinstein are your 'norms', saying Wyden is comparable to Cruz is downright laughable.

Cruz is a lunatic, a House member who happens to be in the Senate. He has no interest in governing. Wyden is a thoughtful and respected leader, whereas Cruz is 'worshiped'. Wyden is trying to STOP Feinstein, Cruz complains McConnell didn't go far enough in his abject obstructionism.

Both sides have their extremes but the extremes in the Dem caucus are a far far cry from the disaster that is the Tea Party and their ilk.

Re:republicrats

[pixelpusher220]

My favorite description of Netanyahu's speech is "He entered the leader of Israel. He left as the leading contender for the 2016 GOP nomination."

Re:republicrats

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was one thing you could do to set the system down a better path, it would be to take money out of politics. Make it unprofitable to be a politician, but at the same time wouldn't require money to become one. That'll filter out all the greedy scumbags that would throw the public over a cliff if it got them a few bucks.

How to accomplish that? I don't know. It's a tough problem.

Re:republicrats

[Jason Levine]

Before 9/11, terrorism was some nebulous thing that happened in some far off land. It was sad to watch on the evening news but then you changed the channel to a sitcom and everything was alright again.

Right after 9/11, the horrors of terrorism came up close and we couldn't ignore them. This, in itself, is fine. The problem was that these people saw that we were scared and jumped in promising to stop terrorism. All they needed in return was a little of this liberty - just a little bit - we wouldn't even notice it was gone. We quickly agreed in our panicked state - shouting down the minority who said it was a bad idea by yelling "Are you taking THE TERRORISTS side? Are you with THEM?!!! DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!!!!!"

Slowly, we began to come to our senses, but were still on edge enough to be scared into approving anything if the politician said "Terrorism" enough times.

Hopefully, by now, we've regained enough sanity that we can a) smack around any politician who tries to claim that removing liberty will prevent terrorism and b) start the long, hard process of getting back the liberty we were scared into giving up years ago.

Re:republicrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in countries where terrorism has been a problem (UK, Spain), liberties were reduced after 9/11.

My theory is that when there is no credible nation to pose as an enemy, the people becomes the enemy. Like an autoimmune disease of the security apparatus.

Re:republicrats

[ras]

Both parties threaten their junior members to tow the party line or they will work against them next election.

Actually, that's not what is happening. It's just a simple matter of the congressmen not needing to give a shit about the voters.

How can that be so in a democracy? Simple: in the US, you allow the politicians to draw the borders between electoral districts. So they redraw the borders to ensure they have a safe seat. Once you have a safe seat, there is no need to care about the people who voted you in.

Quoting Wikipedia:

the two dominant parties in the state of California cooperatively redrew both state and Federal legislative districts to preserve the status quo, ensuring the electoral safety of the politicians from unpredictable voting by the electorate. This move proved completely effective, as no State or Federal legislative office changed party in the 2004 election, although 53 congressional, 20 state senate, and 80 state assembly seats were potentially at risk.

Most western countries have cured themselves of this particular curse, but not the USA. Again quoting Wikipedia:

Due to the perceived issues associated with gerrymandering and its impact on competitive elections and democratic accountability, numerous countries have enacted reforms making the practice either more difficult or less effective. Countries such as the U.K., Australia, Canada and most of those in Europe have transferred responsibility for defining constituency boundaries to neutral or cross-party bodies.

So you might ask yourself, if a typical congressman doesn't have to care about what he voters think, what does he care about? Enriching himself of course. How does he do that? By passing laws allowing anybody to throw unlimited amounts of cash in his direction in return for dispensing favours.

And when that plays out, what do you end up with? Laws that favour the rich of course. And what does a country look like when it allows the rich to run the place? Like the USA of course, where 1% of the people control 35% of the wealth, and 40% people control 0.2%.

You yankies never cease to amaze me.

Re:republicrats

[davester666]

Seriously, why bring gay people into this issue... ;-)

Re:republicrats

[Eunuchswear]

Don't forget to tell us the story of that famous western lawman, Marshal Law.

Re:republicrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Less transparency would be a good idea in congressional votes. Money and party interests require accountability. Force congress to vote anonymously and suddenly you've severed those ties and allow policy to return from the extremes to sanity.

Re:republicrats

[unixcorn]

Certainly the blessed Democrats are not complicit in this at all. I mean they have rallied to get rid of the Patriot Act, right? Oh wait, no they haven't, not even our President who compromised on government snooping oversight and totally bailed on his campaign promise. I loathe people who want to just throw blame. Oh and you are a pussy and a douche bag for posting anonymously.

Re:republicrats

[MachineShedFred]

We're talking about legislation that has been introduced in the United States Senate here, and they can't redraw their districts, as their districts are the borders of the state that they allegedly serve.

Gerrymandering is strictly a phenomenon of the US House of Representatives at the Federal level.

But thanks for the condescension.

Re:republicrats

[gzuckier]

R or D doesn't matter if they agree to allow this type of bullshit they are assholes. Seriously how much are we spending on the witch hunt for terrorists? Can they show results of thwarted attacks to merit such spending? If not the assholes should be removed from office. On a side note I'd be interested to find out if there are any ties between these people and those that have the contracts to provide hardware for this project.

What? In Our America?
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/money-nsa-vote/
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
http://www.digitaljournal.com/...
http://heavy.com/news/2014/01/...

Re:republicrats

[gzuckier]

Just a reminder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.... So http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.... Good English means toe does actually work better than tow. So toe the line when it comes to English especially when using idioms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..., otherwise the 'm' becomes a 't'.

tow that lion, lift that bear!

Re:republicrats

[gzuckier]

Nothing but an attack on the intelligence of the poster based on....a single fucking word.

It's not so much that it's a word, but a phrase which subtly changes the meaning. My hunch is it's a phrase they've heard and not read. As always the devil is in the details. Have you heard someone slip up with their units (TB and KB)? An innocent slip or not it makes them sound foolish in a technical discussion, likewise using a phrase improperly taints the points they're making and brings into question and how informed they are. Perception is reality. Without people pointing this crap out, how will it get better? The use of irregardless is on the rise ffs. Online posts are such absurd crapshoots of appeals to authority and opinion as fact, even people (myself included) who seem to know what they're talking about spout so much profound misinformed nonsense and outright fantasy it's hilarious to take anything read online seriously. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, nobody.

That's why the smart and safe way is to make up your own idioms. "The two major parties both require their members to smurf the gasket at all times". The supercilious reader then assumes he/she is unfamiliar with something other people all know, and will of course pretend that he/she understands it too.

Re: republicrats

[gzuckier]

There has been amazing commentary on why this is. The largest, and most unified group of republican voters are evangelical Christians and within that group, the existance of Israel is seem as a prerequisite to the second coming.

Being all for Israel is a less controversial stance than many others that still panders to a key bloc.

And yet, to coin a phrase, everybody want the second coming but nobody want Armageddon. http://www.deathandtaxesmag.co...

Re:republicrats

[gzuckier]

See, and that is the problem right there. Its so easy to see the problems, and you are right. The prison and military industrial complexes, as well as several others, are a huge problem but.... and this is a Ron Jeremy hairy ass but.... there is no way anything remotely as simple as "Term Limits" is going to fix shit.

You think the big industries can't find bodies to fill seats on a more regular basis?

The bigger problem, really, is fundamentally flawed structure that isn't scaling well, especially since entire industries have grown up around exploiting its weaknesses for profit in one way or another. It is a a deep house made of many many cards.

Take the disasterous war on drugs and particularly pot. When it was made illegal, it wasn't actually even considered a serious drug of abuse. Hell, I have read the congressional records on the first marijuana law which included this exchange "Mr Speaker, what is marijuana?" "I don't know, some narcotic".

Some of the most vocal proponents of the law were people who worked for the FBN, the precursor of the DEA... the people who had just seen prohibition die and were scared for their jobs. It was essentially a coalition of federal workers worried about their jobs and a few industrialists who stood to profit. The AMA even sent a doctor to the Senate hearings to advise against passing the bill!

Now, some 80 years later, how many people have been arrested? How many shot? How many houses and cars repossessed? There are more marijuana smokers than the next 3 major illicit drugs...combined. How many police officers, how many probation officers, how many prison gaurds, drug testing lab technitions.....all have jobs because we arrest and charge adults for smoking a plant.

Its disgusting but, as high as the ideals of this system are, it is incapable of dealing with them. Its incapable of stopping the spending of billions upon billions on military projects we don't need for adversaries we don't have.....because these are diseases eat at the very fabric of the system.

Shit, the DEA openly claims "Parallel Construction" is a legal tactic for "protecting sources" when the reality is, the source they are protecting is the mass surveillance that the people likely wouldn't approve of if they knew...and it works because the system has exhausted its defenses against uncontrolled growth. The loopholes are found....

If a the Police can guide a constructed evidence trail to the courts, then, there is no such thing as a poisonous tree anymore. Their entire answer to mass surveillance is now "anything we don't tell you about is ok".

This system is nearly entirely ownend by tumors of its own creation. Its not any one of these, its all of these. Its the Prison system often enlarged to create jobs and win votes or for private profit, which results in gaurds unions who then lobby for strict laws.... its the military contractors who farm out work to multiple districts to make every project political suicide to kill.... its just so many special interests with so many perverse alignments that its like the patient has lived so long he is more tumor than man.

Bingo. You'd have better results with term limits on American voters than on representatives. The voters are perfectly able to boot the representatives out if they wanted to. Obviously, they don't.

Re: republicrats

[edittard]

Never end a sentence with a preposition.

This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.

Message from the Ministry of Love

[Anonymous Coward]

McConnell's bill is double plus good! Support it, or it's Room 101 for you.

Re:Message from the Ministry of Love

[TheCarp]

ungood refs unplaces; update fullwise.

Re:Message from the Ministry of Love

[MobSwatter]

NSA: Send more "Chicks with dicks!"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Second!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about no. I'm not okay with this law being extended. I want my constitution back.

Re:Second!!

[MitchDev]

You want a government that actually OBEYS the Constituttion?
What are you, some terrorist/anarchist???
Think of the corporate profits...ugh.... I mean the children!!!!

Not just about terrorism

[bulled]

This isn't just about terrorism and the summary does a disservice to the discussion to imply otherwise. This surveillance is used by many other three-letter-agencies for far more than investigating terrorism. One of the key problems with this program is that the American people have no idea how deep it goes and who is using it for what. Opposing this program is about opposing the blank check that has been given to all governmental agencies to use mass surveillance against average citizens when there is no reason to suspect they are involved in anything illegal.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[gstoddart]

Opposing this program is about opposing the blank check that has been given to all governmental agencies to use mass surveillance against average citizens when there is no reason to suspect they are involved in anything illegal.

And don't forget subsequently using that information to commit institutional perjury as they engage in "parallel construction" so that the information they didn't legally obtain can be laundered into making it have the semblance of being legal, and make sure when they do charge you they can hide the facts of the case.

Papers please, comrade.

Sadly, these people who are sworn to defend the Constitution need to be beaten with a hard-bound copy of it -- because they don't seem to understand what the fuck it says.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, they understand it just fine.. they just don't care or feel it should apply to them. this country has such a deeply rooted problem with power that I am starting to think the only way to fix it is to start over.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[fustakrakich]

...need to be beaten with a hard-bound copy...

Or, you know, need to be voted out of office, not reelected to a 40 year career by people only looking for a bigger 'tax cut'(handout)

Re:Not just about terrorism

[aaron4801]

The bigger issue isn't just that it's (supposedly) legal, but that it's even POSSIBLE. You could outlaw all this surveillance, but given how deeply it's entrenched now, does anybody honestly think it would just stop? Secret laws with secret interpretations don't even have to be on the books to be used to threaten already-willing communications companies. The technology is available, and even if illegal, who would prosecute the government?
Take away the authorization, pass a strict ban on the practice...doesn't matter. You can't unbreak the egg.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[thaylin]

You can start letting people go who are accused based on it as judges typically do.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

Sadly, the attempt that came closest to contesting the Fed's ever-growing quest for power and control failed back in '65.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is we're stuck choosing between the corrupt right-wing extremist who wishes to force us to divulge any and all personal and social information for profit and to ensure his power goes undisturbed, and the corrupt right-wing extremist who wishes to force us to divulge any and all personal and social information for profit and to ensure his power goes undisturbed. Sometimes there's also independents but they're basically set up so as to never actually have a chance when it's actually important.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[Whorhay]

The problem is that it isn't necessarily politicians that are abusing this system. It is the agencies manned largely by bureaucrats with a few appointies leading them. Changing the political leadership will do little to stop all of this unless that leader ship change happens encompasses both houses and the presidency, and has a strong will to end the abuses.

You can actually look to the DEA situation right now as an example of how troublesome the long term bureaucrats can be. The current head of the DEA is being forced to retire because she wouldn't give up on trying to enforce Federal pot laws in states that have legalized it. It might take awhile to find a replacement and get them in place, and even then there will probably still be a significant portion of that agency that will continue to push enforcement of those laws even though the President is telling them to cut it out.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[fustakrakich]

You are not stuck with anything. Nobody wants to be inconvenienced with having to pay attention and seeking suitable candidates. The non voter is the biggest voting block there is. If they settled on somebody, we could be rid of the republicans and democrats for good. All you need to do is tune out the bullshit coming from the carny hucksters that are winning today. That alone will reduce the value of the campaign dollar to zero immediately, and would settle this silliness over 'Citizens United'.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[fustakrakich]

The president could abolish the DEA tomorrow if he wishes. It exists at the pleasure of the executive.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[Jane Q. Public]

Oh no, they understand it just fine.. they just don't care or feel it should apply to them.

No, I don't believe that's true. While they might know the words, they haven't really studied it, or its history, enough to UNDERSTAND the intent of the words when they were written.

Further, many of them think they don't have to... that it's a "living document" that changes meaning over time.

I call bullshit.

---
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson, founding father

Re:Not just about terrorism

[spacepimp]

If they are too lazy to care and to react, they are too lazy to understand it.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[aaron4801]

"Parallel Construction." The accused don't even know questionable surveillance techniques are being used against them to challenge it, and even if the they throw an accusation back at the prosecution, judges also have a habit of throwing that out due to lack of standing, for being unable to prove it was used! Besides, this solution depends on the idea that a trial takes place.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[Jane Q. Public]

What they'd fail to realize, of course, is that compulsively stuffing their brains full of conspiracy theory nonsense isn't the same as "studying".

Of course, there will also always be those who claim any skepticism or examination of facts outside the mainstream "official" story is "conspiracy theory". Despite the fact that skeptics have in fact routed out skullduggery and real conspiracy a rather alarming number of times throughout history, and despite the fact that they have not studied those issues themselves.

Or those who don't realize that many individuals acting to the same purpose, in all good will and without coordination, can have the effect of conspiracy even where there is none.

I know you haven't been a student of the Constitution or its history. I have been. You can call that "conspiracy theory" all you like but that doesn't make it so.

Unless you are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence (which would surprise me not at all). The latter was, indeed, a grand conspiracy.

Take your ad-hominem and shove it right up there where the sun doesn't shine. Because that's where it came from, and that's where it properly belongs.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[Jane Q. Public]

Ad-hominem? Where? Do you even know what that term means?

Yes, indeed. Apparently better than you do. It still applies even when the argument is implied rather than stated explicitly.

I know who you are, and I understood the context of your comment just fine, even if other readers here don't. Hey, there's a word for you: context. Do you even know what the term means?

Re:Not just about terrorism

[Jane Q. Public]

Also remember that the context here was that I pointed out why the people Jane's disagreeing with might claim to have studied something for years, even though their absurd conclusions might suggest otherwise to students of the Constitution like Jane Q. Public.

I doubt the average reasonable person would, on reading the original comment this is about, conclude that it referred to "other people".

Mush-Mouth McConnell strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this really surprise anyone?

Once a power is granted...

[surfdaddy]

Once you give government some power it is almost impossible to get it reversed. That's because the foot is in the door, so to speak. This is just like taxes - once in existence, very hard to kill. I'm hoping that this is defeated but am not holding my breath.

Write your Congresscritters

[Rastl]

Time to write your representatives and tell them you oppose this bill. Seriously. Go to their web sites and write them. The only way you can attempt to derail this thing is to be proactive and tell the people elected to represent your interests what your interests ARE.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[Anonymous Coward]

Write them on paper. It gets better results.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[ThatsNotPudding]

Time to write your representatives and tell them you oppose this bill. Seriously. Go to their web sites and write them. The only way you can attempt to derail this thing is to be proactive and tell the people elected to represent your interests what your interests ARE.

You've leapt to the conclusion my 'representatives' are not miserable, lizard-brained fascists, endlessly voted for by the staggeringly stupid mouth breathers in this intellectually-forsaken blood-red rectangle of a state.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[amicusNYCL]

I think everyone needs to write to the people of Kentucky and tell them to stop electing Mitch McConnell. He is the poster boy for what is wrong with Congress. He's been a senator for 30 years. He's been involved with politics since 1964, when he was 22, so essentially his entire adult life. In '64 he graduated with a degree in political science and then began as an intern for a senator the same year. 3 years later he got a law degree, and probably decided that some sort of military service would look good on his record so he joined the Army Reserve and spent 5 weeks stationed at Fort Knox while in law school before being discharged. He assisted another senator, then was the Deputy Assistant AG under Ford, then got elected to his first office in 1977. I can't find any record of private employment not associated with a politician, despite the degree in law. Then he became a senator in 1985 and he's still one today.

The Center for Responsive Politics puts him as the 10th richest senator, with a worth between $9.2 million and $36.5 million. That seems like a hell of a lot of money for a "public servant" to pull down over 30 years, but that's why it seems like career politicians are there to serve themselves and not the public. That's a lot of votes that have been purchased over the years. McConnell is a great example of why every member of congress needs term limits. The notion of a career politician needs to be retired and replaced by ordinary people coming out of the private sector to help run the country, and then going back into the private sector once their service is finished.

Also, he looks like a turtle.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[Chris Mattern]

You'd be surprised. One letter with no contribution from an unknown doesn't do much, no. But you better believe a Congresscritter keeps track of what he gets large amounts of such mail from his constituents on. Because, while you can't get elected without money, having money doesn't guarantee you election (as the number of people who have tried throwing massive amounts of money at an election only to fail miserably shows). He may or may not do what they want, but he *will* pay attention.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[StikyPad]

email phone calls handwritten letters requesting a meeting

Make sure your communication is proportional to your level of concern.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[pnutjam]

Well, he certainly sounds like Ertle.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[QRDeNameland]

Time to write your representatives and tell them you oppose this bill. Seriously. Go to their web sites and write them.

Insert obligatory "...CARRIER LOST" joke here.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[StikyPad]

(Ugh, html stripping.)

email < phone calls < handwritten letters < requesting a meeting

Make sure your communication is proportional to your level of concern.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[wired_parrot]

Writing a strongly worded email may feel good, but it will just get re-directed to a spam filter and deleted. Plus, mountains of emails are mostly invisible to the national media.

If Americans really believe in this issue and want things to change, you need more than armchair protesting by letter-writing. You need large-scale protests in the street. Get a million people out in the streets of major cities, and those types of crowds won't be able to be ignored by the media or your elected representatives.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK that little bitch Mitch, and ram burr up Burr's ass.
God damned lifelong political carnage wreakers on America.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[Anonymous Coward]

(Ugh, html stripping.)

email < phone calls < handwritten letters < requesting a meeting

Make sure your communication is proportional to your level of concern.

Did the postal worker from Florida with his satchel filled with addressed and stamped letters change anything or even get noticed by the politicians? Nope.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[amicusNYCL]

Term limits do nothing except increase the probability of having bad/corrupt representation.

I suggest that we give them a try before making statements like that as if they're facts. Congress (that would be both the Senate and House) have never had term limits since the Constitution was created. I would counter your suggestion by claiming that term limits would help combat the type of de-facto oligarchy that we see today.

Think politics has gone downhill over the last 30 years? That's about how long it's been since term-limits started getting popular.

Thomas Jefferson of Virgina wrote in 1789 that he saw term limits as necessary "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress". That wasn't the first time they were discussed, either. Back when states were ratifying the Constitution in 1787-88 statesmen like Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of term limits (as well as other perceived shortcomings of the Constitution) to be "most highly and dangerously oligarchic". The Bill Of Rights was created to address the issues that many states had with the Constitution, although term limits didn't make it in. In arguing Jefferson's side, George Mason said about Presidential and Senatorial term limits, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation". Female historian Mercy Otis Warren, born 1728, said "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well-timed bribery, will probably be done". There was also discussion during the 19th century, and also the 20th, but nothing got done primarily because the people who would be hurt by term limits are also the people who need to make them law. At this point it seems like it would require an Article V convention of the states to circumvent Congress and implement term limits as a constitutional amendment.

But, instead of your suggestions about what may or may happen with Congressional term limits, and considering the fact that we have never had them and that Congress appears to not be working for the people, I would suggest that we try them and see what happens after a few decades.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[amicusNYCL]

No, it would just make it that much more important for the politician to grab as much money and power as they can before they're out.

I see it as making the notion of a career politician obsolete, so that becoming a politician is no longer a way to lifelong wealth, and as such it would encourage those people to find their wealth elsewhere and leave the governing of the country to people who are legitimately trying to help.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[DiEx-15]

Time to write your representatives and tell them you oppose this bill. Seriously. Go to their web sites and write them. The only way you can attempt to derail this thing is to be proactive and tell the people elected to represent your interests what your interests ARE.

Good luck. You'll need it.

Now if you really want to get this done: Become a corporation (because they are now people after all) and use the billions of votes called "money" that you have to convince them to vote against the bill. The more Dollar Votes you give them, the better!

Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican party.

[Anonymous Coward]

But remember, the Republicans are the party of small government! They want to get it small enough to fit into every American's phone, bedroom, and uterus!

Re:Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican party.

[g0bshiTe]

You act like there's a party that doesn't want that. Please do keep in mind this type of shit knows no party lines.

Good old Republicans..

[Rigel47]

Small government, personal liberty, Constitutional adherence.. and hypocritical jackasses.

Re:Good old Republicans..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sen. Rand Paul, a fellow Kentucky Republican, who pledged to end the NSA program — which he called “unconstitutional surveillance” — if elected. This is the only guy who pledged to shut down this entire unnecessary clown show.

Re:Good old Republicans..

[Anonymous Coward]

He's also a kook who believes in using the police power of the state to force women to bear children they do not want, and he supports a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw same sex marriage. He's a Benghazi nutter. He opposes the separation of church and state. He supports prison for Snowden. He does not believe Americans have any right to clean air or clean water. You want to vote for this guy just because he stated he's opposed to NSA spying?

Who's crazy again?

Re:Good old Republicans..

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really trust any campaign promise? If elected indeed. After people are elected the average year over year gain in net worth is 15.4%. The highest is Pingree (D-ME) at a whopping 73,039%. She has been on the Appropriations, Armed Services, and Agriculture comittees. Eight out of the top ten representatives that increased their net worth are on committees relating to agriculture, military, or homeland security. Two of them are laughably on the ethics committee.

The pattern is clear.

Source with plenty of data

the voting blocks in america kind of decide this

[nimbius]

So voting blocks in america basically work like this:
Elderly: Fox news told me shariah muslim terrorists are installing isis anchor babies in the fema death camp that controls the war on christmas. I still think communism is a real threat, socialists are identifiable through diet, and poor people are poor because they just dont want to work. The only predictable consistent things in my life are regular voting and wheel of fortune.
Gen X: The only news I trust is Glen Beck and singing woodland creatures. 9/11 was an inside job, the gold standard is a feasible alternative, and once i get my cabin in the woods and gun to match my constitution tattoo i'll stop voting entirely. My candidate of choice still doesnt understand the internet or foreign policy but he primised to make taxes go away so thats good.
Millenials: Im broke, unemployed, and between college debt and rent i have about enough money to show up in court to plead guilty to a misdemeanor pot charge. im a freelance web developer but because boomers turned that position into a mechanical turk, Im also a bartender a painter and a food stamp recipient. I had a house once, but, it got taken by the bank. I had a car, but i never drive it anymore because I had my license revoked for not making the payments I cant make on the student loan that didnt amount to a job. I'd vote, but I was turned away after not having a license. My biggest accomplishment has been health insurance and regular checkups. Gays, atheism, abortion, muslims, and any other recycled culture war bullshit are absolutely meaningless to me.

Not one to call names

[StikyPad]

I'm not generally one to call people names, but Mitch "The Bitch" McConnell needs to sack up or shut up. I will admit, it takes a lot of bravery to willfully ignore potential surveillance information on principle when the costs could be high. Nobody's saying that surveillance can't work. But we're supposed to be the land of the brave, not the land of the Chicken Littles engaging in surreptitious and unconstitutional spying because we're worried that a couple of jihadists might attack us in what amounts to the existential equivalent of a stubbed toe.

Besides, I don't trust anything that hides inside it's own shell at the first sign of trouble. And God help us if he gets stuck on his back again.

Re:Good old Democrats.

[twocows]

I vote both ways, but at least the Ds didn't claim to be pro-small government and then turn around and support this shit. Hypocrisy has a nasty stink about it.

Small typo

[Errol backfiring]

It puts McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the bill’s co-sponsor, squarely on the side of advocates of the National Security Agency’s continued ability to collect millions of Americans’ phone records each day in the cluesless hunt for terrorist activity

There, fixed that for you

No Point to 2nd Amendment if Ignoring the Others

[Maltheus]

Republicans like to talk up the Constitution, which I'm a big fan of, but they really only care about a single amendment. And the only point of having that is to defend against the loss of the others. But what's the point of it? If they won't even vote to defend the others, they sure won't fight for them.

Paging Mr. Hamilton...

[mrchaotica]

So I was going to make a joke about how somebody should "appropriately deal with" Senator Burr, but then decided against it because the jackbooted thugs at the FBI (or whatever) might not be amused.

Let this just be one more example of the damage the so-called "Patriot Act" has done to our formerly-free society.

Re:Paging Mr. Hamilton...

[cold fjord]

Won't someone think of the child...er vulgarity?

It's simple...

[MT.LinuxUsr]

the "American" government is slowing becoming communist!
Our "leaders" want books banned, surveillance on innocent people, and yet,
none of them have to abide by ANY law.

I have long suspected that McConnell is/has-become a communist -- I've always known
he was an idiot. Too bad the people of Kentucky don't realize that. An education would help them,
but then McConnell would surely put a stop to schools.

Re:It's simple...

[itsenrique]

Who roused Joseph McCarthy from the grave?

Re:It's simple...

[HornWumpus]

Public education predates communism as much as book burnings, surveillance and succeeding in not abiding by the law.

Re:It's simple...

[Fire_Wraith]

Communism is an economic system, not a political system. The word you're looking for is Totalitarianism.

Now, it's true that the two have been synonymous in that it took a Totalitarian government to impose a communist economic system (or something close to it) in practice, but you can just as easily pair Totalitarianism with other economic systems, including Capitalism.

Re:It's simple...

[DamnOregonian]

If you look hard, you'll see he never really left the halls of Congress.

It's called protecting America

[kjshark]

When they're looking at you, fine. But congress freaked out when the CIA was looking at THEM. It's fair to say they think rules are great for us, but they should be held to a different arbitrary self made standard when it comes to applying the law to themselves:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Re:He thinks a Republican is going to win 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

We can only hope.... from TFA Sen. Rand Paul, a fellow Kentucky Republican, who pledged to end the NSA program — which he called “unconstitutional surveillance” — if elected.

Re:He thinks a Republican is going to win 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Except he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Obummer pledged to close Gitmo, except Congress made sure he couldn't.

Rand Paul also doesn't know shit about the Constitution, because he wanted to try alleged terrorists in absentee before making drone strikes; with is explicitely illegal.

Re:the voting blocks in america kind of decide thi

[Sir_Eptishous]

Brilliant!

S.1035

[Anonymous Coward]

Took me a while to find it . . . S.1035 is the bill I wrote my congressmen, I'm sure that's going to get me on SOME list.

Re:the voting blocks in america kind of decide thi

[Anonymous Coward]

> Uses Elderly instead of Boomers
> Thinks GenX watches Glen Beck
> Thinks GenX is conservative survivalists
> Thinks Millenials owned houses
> Thinks Millenials don't culture war

> Modded +5 insightful.

Remember when Slashdot wasn't filled with idiots? AC remembers.

Re:the voting blocks in america kind of decide thi

[swb]

That's great, but you were too soft on millennials. .

Re:Good old Democrats.

[donkwich]

How do you know the original poster was a Democrat? Furthermore, why do you care about petty partisan bullshit? People like you are the problem, playing into the stupid dichotomy and failing to realize that both major parties are filled with assholes.

Our constitution wasn't written for the people

[rsilvergun]

Seriously. Go back and read some of the discussions from the time. Our entire system of gov't was built from the ground up to protect wealthy land owners. I say we let the damn thing burn.

Re:the voting blocks in america kind of decide thi

[randalware]

Hello, sweetie !

Keep up the feisty attitude.
Troll bashing is a exercise in futility.

80% or more of the population are functional useless.

I salute you for being a thinking & active person

One word: Gyrocopter

[fygment]

Existing tech should have had Whitehouse security standing by (not to mention other layers of the security envelope) but didn't.

The tech was fine, clearly the users of it failed. No measures need to be extended, no new and sweeping permissions are required, no new intrusion tech is required.

What's needed are simply intelligent people paying attention. No bill is going to provide that.

Mich McConnel

[pebear]

The guy is clueless. He looks like a human dildo. I'm a republican and I hate the guy. He is the best case scenario for term limits.