NSA Reform Bill Backed By Both Parties Set To Pass House of Representatives

HughPickens.com writes: The NY Times reports that after more than a decade of wrenching national debate over the intrusiveness of government intelligence agencies, a bipartisan wave of support has gathered to sharply limit the federal government's sweeps of phone and Internet records. A bill that would overhaul the Patriot Act and curtail the metadata surveillance exposed by Edward Snowden overwhelmingly passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of a 25-2, and is heading to almost certain passage in the House of Representatives. An identical bill in the Senate — introduced with the support of five Republicans — is gaining support over the objection of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is facing the prospect of his first policy defeat since ascending this year to majority leader. "The bill ends bulk collection, it ends secret law," says Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the original author of the Patriot Act who has now helped author the Freedom Act. "It increases the transparency of our intelligence community and it does all this without compromising national security."

The Patriot Act is up for its first reauthorization since the revelations about bulk data collection. The impending June 1 deadline for reauthorization, coupled with an increase of support among members of both parties, pressure from technology companies and a push from the White House, have combined to make changes to the provisions more likely. The Snowden disclosures, along with data breaches at Sony Pictures, Target and the insurance giant Anthem, have unsettled voters and empowered those in Congress arguing for greater civil liberties protection — who a few years ago "could have met in a couple of phone booths," says Senator Ron Wyden. The Freedom Act very nearly passed both chambers of Congress last year, but it failed to garner the 60 votes to break a filibuster in the Senate. It fell short by two votes.

However some say the bill doesn't go far enough. The bill leaves intact surveillance programs conducted by the Drug Enforcement Agency and levies high penalties against those offering "material support" to terrorists. It also renews the expiring parts of the Patriot Act through 2019. "This bill would make only incremental improvements, and at least one provision – the material-support provision – would represent a significant step backwards," says American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer. "The disclosures of the last two years make clear that we need wholesale reform."

Comments

Not sure, if this is much better

[mi]

"The bill ends bulk collection, it ends secret law," says Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the original author of the Patriot Act who has now helped author the Freedom Act.

Well, according to New York Times:

Under the bipartisan bills in the House and Senate, the Patriot Act would be changed to prohibit bulk collection, and sweeps that had operated under the guise of so-called National Security Letters issued by the F.B.I. would end. The data would instead be stored by the phone companies themselves [emphasis mine -mi], and could be accessed by intelligence agencies only after approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.

I'm not sure, we gained all that much here...

Re:Not sure, if this is much better

[koan]

No we didn't.
It's a way for the government services to obey laws which private companies will not have to obey, and corps will include this in the TOS that everyone agrees to without reading.

Re:Not sure, if this is much better

[mi]

If they need a warrant (from the FISA court) to access the data (just like previously)

Well, if you put the "just like previously" part into your own post, then we aren't disagreeing, that this is not much of an improvement — and that was my premise.

That agreement now established, let's move on to what's wrong with the existing Act — and what's likely to remain wrong even after the proposed amendments are passed...

And the problem with FISA-court is that — unlike all other courts — it does not hear both sides . They may deny the rubber-stamp allegations, but they have only rejected 11 surveillance requests out of 33900 submitted since the court's inception to 2013...

how is it not abiding by the fourth amendment?

I said nothing about the Forth Amendment, actually. Whether it even applies to one's communications is no immediately obvious. No, my claim is not whether Patriot Act violates the Constitution, but whether or not the upcoming changes to it constitute a discernible improvement.

Would you prefer that law enforcement/spy agencies had to be fully tied and unable to conduct investigations?

I would prefer, that the government had no way to force private companies to preemptively record data about me just in case it may be needed by some future investigation.

Without being so forced, some companies may still prefer to do it seeking your business and others may choose not to seeking that of libertines. The existing regulatory mandate — cooperate with the FBI or else — troubles me greatly, and should trouble everyone...

Re:Not sure, if this is much better

[L4m3rthanyou]

Smells like plausible deniability to me.

Up to now, we've seen plenty of evidence that the intelligence agencies don't seem to have major qualms about violating US law, as long as it's done quietly. Who's going to prosecute? This is just Congress realizing that it does not need to take the political heat for broad surveillance that it authorized. Once in place, NSA will happily continue the operations without overt permission to do so.

People who are high up in government intelligence are going to bank on not being caught performing illegal surveillance over not being taken to task over the first thing they "miss" due to inadequate coverage.

Bad headline - this is marketing

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> also renews the expiring parts of the Patriot Act through 2019

This should be the headline: Bipartisan bill renews Patriot Act for four years, with minor tweaks

In fact, I think there's really no reform. From TFA:
"data would instead be stored by the phone companies themselves, and could be accessed by intelligence agencies only after approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court"

Um...guess what happens as soon as this bill is passed? "Hey Obama, er, I mean secret court, can we please continue access all the data from those boxes we installed at the phone companies again? Of course? Well, thanks!"

Re:Bulk Collection? The Air Waves are Free

[disposable60]

Secret law enabling secret courts to charge and try you, in secret, and no one is allowed to say anything without thus becoming criminals themselves.

That ain't American, but that's where we've been for 13+ years now.

The National Security State will arrive, not with tanks and guns, but wrapped in the flag and carrying the word 'TERRORISTS!'

Cost

[Livius]

The only meaningful change will be phone companies adding an extra data storage fee to phone bills. They'll probably call themselves heroes for safeguarding private data from the government, who now will only be able to access the data on demand.

Re:Pardon me

[spacepimp]

He upheld his oath to uphold the constitution. Not doing what he said is a violation of the highest order in America.

Re:Phone booths

[Zontar The Mindless]

I think that depends on whether you're using the Chop, Mince, or Purée setting.

It's still very bad.

[Lumpy]

"It also renews the expiring parts of the Patriot Act through 2019."

No. let that fucking thing die. The PATRIOT ACT and those that support it are enemies of the american people.