Slashdot Mirror


House Votes To End Spy Agencies' Bulk Collection of Phone Data

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a story at Reuters that gives a rare bit of good news for the Fourth Amendment: The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill on Wednesday that would end spy agencies' bulk collection of Americans' telephone data, setting up a potential showdown with the U.S. Senate over the program, which expires on June 1. The House voted 338-88 for the USA Freedom Act, which would end the bulk collection and instead give intelligence agencies access to telephone data and other records only when a court finds there is reasonable suspicion about a link to international terrorism.

142 comments

  1. Whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not enough.

    1. Re:Whatever... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      *John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Whatever... by aaron4801 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In fact, it may be too much.
      The EFF just withdrew support of the Freedom Act after the 2nd Circuit decision that said Section 215 of the Patriot Act doesn't authorize ANY data collection of Americans. The Freedom Act is a step back from current collection efforts, but actually codifies some that could possibly be overturned without it!

    3. Re:Whatever... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Insightful

      meh. I say that the section 215 of the patriot act as written is not necessarily a violation of the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. it authorizes the collection of business records relevant to a terrorist investigation. it only became unconstitutional when "business records" was interpreted to mean "anything we want" and "investigation" was interpreted to mean "eternal vigilance." Section 215 could very easily be implemented in a way that is constitutionally sound, and thus the provision itself is not unconstitutional.

      Given the options on the table i would take the improvement. this legislative improvement, along with a bitch-slapped NSA who would stay within the intent of the law, is much better than what we had before.

    4. Re: Whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So that means they have been breaking the law all this time? How many years in prison for how many people?

    5. Re: Whatever... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      they will likely have "qualified immunity" because at the time they were breaking the law they had implicit/explicit approval from the FISA court.

    6. Re: Whatever... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      No court can authorize an inherently illegal action. The Supreme Court of the United States can approve me murdering schoolchildren all it wants, but my ass will still fry for it (and rightfully so).

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    7. Re: Whatever... by KagatoLNX · · Score: 2

      Inherently illegal isn't really a thing. Maybe you mean immoral?

      In any case, courts in the US have been just fine with authorizing the killing of schoolchildren. None of the involved parties fried for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

      --
      I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
    8. Re: Whatever... by johanw · · Score: 1

      Hey, you know, "befehl ist befehl". That worked so well at the Neurenberg trials after WW2 so why not now?

    9. Re:Whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why in the world would you think the NSA is going to actually follow the law? They've not exactly given any signs they give a shit about doing so lately. Rather the opposite, in fact.

      As long as no one, except whistle-blowers, are getting any jail time, don't expect any actual change. They'll just rename the programs and do a better job of hiding what they're doing.

    10. Re: Whatever... by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, that's the entire point of a warrant: it's the state's written grant of immunity for people to do things that would otherwise be illegal. Ordinarily, it's illegal for anyone to forcibly restrain you and hold you against your will. But with an arrest warrant, it's legal.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:Whatever... by bigpat · · Score: 2

      Section 215 could very easily be implemented in a way that is constitutionally sound, and thus the provision itself is not unconstitutional.

      All evidence to the contrary... limitless authority is unconstitutional whether it is acted upon or not. And in this case we know the government is using that blank check authority to carry out dragnet searches of all Americans communications and business records. Phone records are a drop in the bucket.

    12. Re: Whatever... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      your ass probably wouldn't fry for it. You may be convicted in trial court, but the conviction would likely be overturned in the appellate courts because of supreme court precedent saying that in your particular circumstances it's legal to do what you described.

    13. Re:Whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Section 215 could very easily be implemented in a way that is constitutionally sound, and thus the provision itself is not unconstitutional.

      Except that the implementation itself depends on the process whereby intelligence agencies are granted permission to collect data consists of something more than "FISA, we need to--" "You have permission to collect data relevant to this investigation." rubberstamping without oversight.

    14. Re:Whatever... by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Also section 215 is not even dead - if you look at section 705 of the USA Freedom Act:

      705.Sunsets
      (a)USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005
      Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (50 U.S.C. 1805 note) is amended by striking June 1, 2015 and inserting December 15, 2019.

      (b)Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
      Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking June 1, 2015 and inserting December 15, 2019.

      So they just voted to extend the Patriot Act provision for domestic spying instead of letting it die June 1.

      I agree - it seems to actually allow more data to be sucked up, too (like VoIP calls) and removes legal responsibility from corporations that give this data to the government.

    15. Re: Whatever... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      There are things the state cannot grant or authorize because they would violate the rights of the people. The US Constitution recognizes some of that (at least on paper; in practice...). The government lacks the requisite authority to authorize those rights to be denied or revoked.

      When they do it anyway, all involved should be hauled off to prison, even if it takes an army of the people to do so.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    16. Re: Whatever... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Inherently illegal isn't really a thing. Maybe you mean immoral?

      No, I mean illegal. The US Constitution recognizes that there are things beyond the reach of any government's authority and by their very nature, such things cannot emanate from the government. Ergo, violation of such rights is inherently illegal regardless of what laws or judges or kings and queens might say or do.

      In any case, courts in the US have been just fine with authorizing the killing of schoolchildren. None of the involved parties fried for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

      Regardless of the unfortunate case you cited and the suspicions that a grave injustice was done, capital punishment is not murder by its very definition. To clarify my example, the Supreme Court cannot order or authorize me to go out and kill random schoolchildren. They can order or authorize the capture and punishment of a person convicted of a capital crime, but they lack the requisite authority to allow or require that I go kill innocent people.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    17. Re: Whatever... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      yes, they believed they were doing the Lord's work, therefore, by definition, it could not be illegal.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. of which agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For every program we discover there's probably 3 or 4 that we haven't yet.
    For every agency we know about, there's probably at least 1 or 2 more.
    NSA gets all the news. When's the last time anyone mentioned the NRO?
    Does this include DOD, DOJ, all branches of the military, private contractors used to skirt the laws, etc...?

  3. They've invested billions by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They've invested billions if not trillions in the surveillance networks and infrastructure.

    Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?

    I won't.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:They've invested billions by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They've invested billions if not trillions in the surveillance networks and infrastructure.

      Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?

      I won't.

      I don't think its the sunk money that matters to them. It's the heady feeling of autocracy and superpowers which they'll never give up. The NSA and CIA are significantly staffed by bad, treasonous, anti-democratic people.

    2. Re:They've invested billions by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no requirement to mothball it. They can still use it but only in accordance with the US Constitution. They have to get a warrant. Novel idea that, probably never catch on.

    3. Re:They've invested billions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should they? They'll never get any credit, thanks to assholes like you. If you don't support them when they try to help, why the fuck should they listen to a word you say?

      Politicians have powerful, cushy jobs. The only way to keep those jobs is to get the public to vote for them. So they will listen to us, from time to time. But only if we actually give them a reasonable demand. If your demand is "Disband all federal law enforcement agencies", then you're going to be ignored. They'll write off your vote as a lost cause, and try to find voters elsewhere.

    4. Re:They've invested billions by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They've invested billions if not trillions in the surveillance networks and infrastructure.

      Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?

      I won't.

      I don't think its the sunk money that matters to them. It's the heady feeling of autocracy and superpowers which they'll never give up. The NSA and CIA are significantly staffed by bad, treasonous, anti-democratic people.

      The bill that made it to the house floor was so watered down it was meaningless. It got so many votes because it was a way for congressmen to clean their skirts, while doing nothing significant to curtail the activities of the NSA.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    5. Re:They've invested billions by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?

      Phone records were likely but a small slice of what the surveillance networks are working on.

      They likely have Internet tap aggregators with black boxes in all the major POPs across the country, nay the world.

      If you post something on Facebook, Twitter, or Slashdot, they likely have the data indexed within 15 seconds, And connected to all the poster's personally identifying information for 99% of users, with a single click.

    6. Re:They've invested billions by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      The bill that made it to the house floor was so watered down it was meaningless. It got so many votes because it was a way for congressmen to clean their skirts, while doing nothing significant to curtail the activities of the NSA.

      This.

      Hope it gets defeated in the Senate, and they just let Sec. 215 expire. Call or write your Congresscritters in the Senate and tell them to vote down this deceitful POS. Sunset 215!

    7. Re:They've invested billions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you post something on Facebook, Twitter, or Slashdot, they likely have the data indexed within 15 seconds, And connected to all the poster's personally identifying information for 99% of users, with a single click.

      I have the solution.

      Hey, NSA!

    8. Re:They've invested billions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will never pass in the Senate.

    9. Re:They've invested billions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will never pass in the Senate.

      I am the Senate!

    10. Re:They've invested billions by bigpat · · Score: 1

      There is no requirement to mothball it. They can still use it but only in accordance with the US Constitution. They have to get a warrant. Novel idea that, probably never catch on.

      Somehow the United States survived for over two hundred years requiring the government to get a warrant to search the records of individuals and businesses and without the kind of dragnet surveillance being perpetrated against the American people. The threat that the USA Freedom Act poses to the American People is far far greater than what any terrorist could do.

    11. Re:They've invested billions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should they? They'll never get any credit, thanks to assholes like you. If you don't support them when they try to help, why the fuck should they listen to a word you say?

      Politicians have powerful, cushy jobs. The only way to keep those jobs is to get the public to vote for them. So they will listen to us, from time to time. But only if we actually give them a reasonable demand. If your demand is "Disband all federal law enforcement agencies", then you're going to be ignored. They'll write off your vote as a lost cause, and try to find voters elsewhere.

      Are you claiming that the USA Freedom Act is "trying to help". That is a big fucking joke. All 388 congressmen that voted for this bill have knowingly violated their oath of office or they are complete idiots. Either way they don't deserve our support and they should resign.

    12. Re:They've invested billions by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Well the current crop is so incompetent that they can't do anything so difficult as applying for a warrant. That's too hard for them. If they knew their ass from a hole in the ground the World Trade Center towers would still be standing.

  4. Snowden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So Snowden is going to be pardoned by Obama now, right? Because he's been proven to be correct time and time again, and congress continues to validate his position by voting to approve these counter-spy bills.

    1. Re:Snowden... by NormAtHome · · Score: 2

      I'd really like to see that but I doubt it's going to happen, there's a lot of pressure by law enforcement and U.S. intelligence and the people he embarrassed by his disclosures to make an example of him so that anyone else with a conscience that works for the government will think a few times and decide "Nope, don't want to end up like Snowden in prison / solitary for the rest of my life".

    2. Re:Snowden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'd like to see them try to throw Obama in prison. That would never happen, even if he did pardon Snowden.

    3. Re:Snowden... by shentino · · Score: 1

      The way the country goes, the powers that be would probably have Obama impeached if he tried to pardon Snowden.

    4. Re:Snowden... by NormAtHome · · Score: 2

      I'm no lawyer and I hope that someone with more knowledge than me chimes in here if I'm wrong, but I believe (from a quick Google search) that to be pardoned for a crime you first have to be convicted of that crime. So Snowden hasn't been charged or convicted even though there is a warrant out for his arrest should he enter a jurisdiction that has an extradition treaty with the United States.

      Snowden has publicly said that he would return to the US (and wants to), if he is promised a public trial in civilian court and so far no one from the justice department has made any promises or offers (and if it was me, I don't know if I would believe it if they said it but refused to provide it in writing). I don't know that the President has the authority to tell the justice department "Look, we're ending that program anyway and a lot of people believe he's a hero and did the country a public service so rescind that arrest warrant and let him off the hook". So Snowden would have to be tried, convicted and sentenced and then his lawyers could apply for a pardon but that could mean years in jail, possibly in solitary with only a slim hope that whoever follows Obama is favorably disposed towards him. Just as an example, many people felt George W. Bush was a stooge for Dick Chaney but at the end of his presidency Chaney had a melt down when Bush wouldn't pardon his friend Scooter Libby because of political pressure from everyone else who thought he didn't deserve a pardon. I don't think the president can just randomly choose to pardon someone, there's a process that it has to go through before the paperwork reaches his desk and I don't believe his can start that process.

    5. Re:Snowden... by ZipK · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe (from a quick Google search) that to be pardoned for a crime you first have to be convicted of that crime.

      Nope. See U.S. Proclamation 4311, for example:

      NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

    6. Re:Snowden... by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

      Ok, so Google can be wrong...... good to know :-)

    7. Re:Snowden... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      No, one can be pardoned even before being indicted. See Ford's pardon of Nixon for an example. The presidential pardon is a pretty powerful tool, but the president can't wield it too freely as there is great potential for political backlash against the party.

      If a Republican gets the White House in 2016 (or even if they don't), I hope Obama mans up and pardons Snowden and Manning and others who blew the whistle on this. It would be one of the few things he could do to redeem his half-assed presidency IMO, but I am not holding my breath.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    8. Re:Snowden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden is and was a traitor. He released some highly sensitive stuff that does not cross any moral boundaries.

      It has been shown that Snowden took the position with the intent to leak information, which strongly implies that he did not know what he was leaking before actually doing it. He got lucky and leaked some serious garbage that I am happy to see being shutdown, but there was a lot of good stuff that we lost because of him too.

    9. Re:Snowden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all Snowden did was release information on this particular program of capturing domestic phone metadata he would already be back in the US a free man. But the majority of information he has released has contained information about legitimate and perfectly legal foreign intelligence operations. The minute he released information on intelligence programs the had absolutely no impact on any US citizen foreign or domestic he sealed his fate. I hope he is enjoying his stay in Russia because that is where he will live out the rest of his life.

    10. Re:Snowden... by fnj · · Score: 1

      The way the country goes, the powers that be would probably have Obama impeached if he tried to pardon Snowden.

      Ha! There's an easy end-run around that scenario. He does what all presidents do. He issues a whole shitload of pardons during the last few days of his presidency. You can't even begin to get the slow wheels of impeachment working in hours, even if anyone is paying attention on his final day.

    11. Re:Snowden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name the specifics, you lying sack of shit.

    12. Re: Snowden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. It is not being traitors if you expose a criminal behaviour of you own government. Snowden is a hero. The traitors here are still in the office.

    13. Re:Snowden... by rossz · · Score: 2

      Not likely. Obama doesn't have the balls. Nor does he have the desire.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    14. Re:Snowden... by mcl630 · · Score: 2

      So Snowden is going to be pardoned by Obama now, right? Because he's been proven to be correct time and time again, and congress continues to validate his position by voting to approve these counter-spy bills.

      This is the one and only "counter-spy bill" they've passed (and it still needs to get through the Senate). Everything else from congress on this has just been hot air.

    15. Re:Snowden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Just because the law changes doesn't mean those who broke the old defunct law shouldn't be punished. Look, after the slaves were freed we rounded up all the ones that broke the law by escaping their captors and punished them good, see?

    16. Re:Snowden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Obama pardoned someone simply because they were right about stuff, then he would also have to admit that Romney was correct about all the foreign policy predictions he made during the last election. Its like Romney was looking into a crystal ball when he said what would happen in Iraq and Russia.

      Obama only makes you a hero if you are a military deserter. If you have any amount of foresight or integrity then you are on your own.

    17. Re:Snowden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Spying on the German Chancellor's communications has nothing to do with domestic policies, for one.

      Annoying as shit for the Germans, embarrassing for us, but certainly and decidedly not domestic. Should we not be doing it? Hell, I honestly don't know. Sure as shit they'd listen in on Obama's phone calls if they could, so why the hell not? Regardless, it's decidedly not illegal, not domestic, and exactly what the NSA is mandated to do: listen in to foreign communications.

      For exposing the domestic programs the man is absolutely a whistle blower. The problem lies in that he continued exposing secret programs which had nothing to do with domestic spying and everything to do with what we pay the government to have the NSA do in the first place. This is the only reason I look on him unfavorably. If he had stopped with the metadata as pp mentioned, he'd be an undeniable hero and a true patriot today.

    18. Re:Snowden... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      His own administration is the one that has so forcefully prosecuted all of these whistleblowers. What makes you think he has any desire at all to pardon them?

      The weird Stockholm Syndrome (or battered spouse)-like feelings that people have towards politicians baffles me.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    19. Re:Snowden... by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Not likely. Obama doesn't have the balls. Nor does he have the desire.

      Probably true, I would imagine being shown the Kennedy assassination tapes probably does stick with you even after a couple terms of presidency.

    20. Re:Snowden... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you do things like pardon, on your last day in office, an international financier and hedge fund manager who was indicted for making oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis and tax evasion and who happens to give vast sums of money to your wife's senate campaign and your presidential library foundation as well as more than a million to your party. Then there is no political backlash, and the DAG who recommended the pardon can even go on to become Attorney General.

    21. Re:Snowden... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I'm no lawyer and I hope that someone with more knowledge than me chimes in here if I'm wrong, but I believe (from a quick Google search) that to be pardoned for a crime you first have to be convicted of that crime. So Snowden hasn't been charged or convicted even though there is a warrant out for his arrest should he enter a jurisdiction that has an extradition treaty with the United States.

      I don't think that President Nixon was actually CONVICTED of anything (but several of his minions were); but that didn't stop Gerald Ford from Pardoning him (but not his minions). The effect of the "Pardon" was to immunitize Nixon against any future prosecution for Watergate-related crimes.

  5. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They passed a bill to limit another bill which was already clearly illegal to begin with. Exactly what will change..?

  6. Great for all ya Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But what about the rest of the world.....

  7. Suuuure we'll "stop" "wiretapping" by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 3, Funny

    NSA to the people:

    PFCHFHFCHFHF! Yeeeeah. We'll "stop" "wiretapping."

    1. Re:Suuuure we'll "stop" "wiretapping" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is very very weird when even the government of a people can't tell the spy agency of the government to stop.

    2. Re: Suuuure we'll "stop" "wiretapping" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is perfectly normal, they know better than we, they are protecting us from our own ignorant foolishness.

    3. Re:Suuuure we'll "stop" "wiretapping" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does the fox say?
      PFCHFHFCHFHF!

    4. Re:Suuuure we'll "stop" "wiretapping" by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're not really trying, and they don't really want to. It's a pacification thing.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Suuuure we'll "stop" "wiretapping" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They aren't ending the spying if you look at the "Freedom" Bill, they just require the corporations to do the spying instead and give them legal protection against lawsuits. The cost will likely be passed on as a new fee on the customer bills. The court orders for viewing the data is still the secret FISA court and I don't think their is anything preventing open ended court orders.

      This is not a win. Instead of the government having the data, now the corporations and the government have the data and it frees up the government to spend the money they were spending on collecting the data elsewhere. I don't trust the corporations or the government to spy on me.

    6. Re:Suuuure we'll "stop" "wiretapping" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck this Senator Mitch Mcconnell motherfucker too, he's a real prick dicked power freak.

    7. Re:Suuuure we'll "stop" "wiretapping" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The upside is that corporations will now be able to market to you much more effectively, while charging you for the privilege of you giving them information to sell on to others so they can sell shit to you.

    8. Re:Suuuure we'll "stop" "wiretapping" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can stop it. Its called "funding". The NSA has to provide a budget to Congress and if Congress doesnt like part of the budget then they wont fund it. Unless the NSA has its people work for free and run the servers from their own homes then Congress can easily stop it. It all boils down to who funds the paychecks and utility bills.

  8. "Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Have you actually read the text of the bill? The bulk collection of phone data is not only still allowed, they give legal protections and guidelines for monetary compensation to the businesses they order to collect the data.

    Oh yeah, and at the very bottom of the bill? They reauthorize another section of the Patriot Act.

    1. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm reading... but it is like reading a patch file for a language I don't understand, when I don't have the file that is being patched.
           

      (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking “an order” and inserting “an order or emergency production”; and

      That might as well be:
           

      Go to line 57 and insert "else break;"

      It looks like they are trying to say that, in order to bulk collect data, they must have a specific search they are running that involves a specific telephone line. See SEC 201.

      Can someone define "tangible things" as in "SEC. 103. Prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things" or "“(i) Emergency authority for production of tangible things."

    2. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I have such a difficult time following bills and why I hate politicians and their games so much.

      I want to smack them. Every single one. Straight out of office. I'd love to see them bawling having to work a "normal" job like most of the country and live under the rules they have crafted without their special congressional exemptions and protections.

      Bastards. Every single one of them.

    3. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by frdmfghtr · · Score: 2

      I was thinking the same thing. To really see what it does, you have to get the original text and apply the bill to it. Otherwise, yes, it's just a bunch of patches. I'd like to see more bills written in a form that replaces the entire section so the change can be seen in context.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    4. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO ONE amongst these sheeple has read the bill or bothered to lift a finger to do anything about it.
      They just blindly accept all the BULLSHIT their Government feeds them.

      They SHOULD HAVE got the fuck off their couch and demanded this be enacted...
      https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/27/whistleblowers-back-surveillance-state-repeal-act/

      But intead all they got was more of the same...

      https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/13/greatest-threat-free-speech-comes-terrorism-claiming-fight/
      https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/09/lobbyists-for-spies-appointed-to-oversee-spying/
      https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/13/usa-freedom-act/

      It's disgusting and your children and grandkids will have to live in this shit world of spying and chilling and eventually slavery that they wished for when the sheeple SIT ON THEIR ASS.

    5. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be noted that the sheeple includes basically all slashdot readers.

    6. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Since the U.S. Court of Appeals already found NSA mass phone data collection to be illegal why would they need a new law to end it?

      Sounds fishy.

    7. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse, it's like a patch with -C 0

    8. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is an old tactic for getting an unpopular thing around readers. It's what the Lisbon treaty was: the EU's patchset for Maastricht, expressly intended to be incomprehensible to the reader because of exactly what you're describing. The French had killed the Treaty for the Constitution of Europe, which was written as a straightforward constitution, so the EU went back and reimplemented the Treaty for the Constitution of Europe as a set of patches on Maastricht. They almost got caught by the Irish, who put the thing to a referendum, but they got the Irish to keep voting on it until it was approved.

    9. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      It looks like they are trying to say that, in order to bulk collect data, they must have a specific search they are running that involves a specific telephone line. See SEC 201.

      Can someone define "tangible things" as in "SEC. 103. Prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things" or "“(i) Emergency authority for production of tangible things."

      Well I'm sure the Executive branch can define it for you, though you may find the particulars of their definition convoluted and self-serving.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    10. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Legalese is surprisingly similar to a programming language. The purpose of legalese is to turn ambiguous english into concrete lines. While this can be used for nefarious purposes, like intentionally ambiguous laws, its not that hard to parse once you start looking at it like a procedure.

    11. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mailed my house rep about the surveillance state repeal act, so don't talk down to me you shit.

    12. Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need artificial intelligence parsing software to help interpret this spaghetti code. Politicians should not be able to vote on legislation if they can't pass a test on what proposed bills contain.

  9. "Citizens united" was a coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The companies that gain those billions will be figuring out who voted which way and how they can shape politics to ensure that is reversed. The Generals that run these programs, likewise, will be out there doing their "your kids will die if we don't spy on you" scare tactics. And you'll realize that the Generals aren't following the elected government, they're following their own agenda with the backing of a group of corps.

    "Citizens united" (i.e. corporation-people are like real citizen-people) was a coup.

  10. Sham Bill - American Sheeple Duped Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Top NSA officials held "closed door" briefings with senators yesterday to scare them into voting to continue their massive illegal spying program.

    It's a sham "reform" bill that extends the controversial surveillance state provisions of the "Patriot" Act set to expire June 1.

    The reason you are hearing this "Wonderful News" is because the CIA issues press releases to all of their CIA assets (news agencies like NBC, FOX, CBS, CNN, et all) to make sure they highlight 1 good thing they are attempting to remove from their illegal spying programs - the unfettered access to record any phone conversation whenever they like without a warrant.

    Except nothing else has changed. Top NSA officials are making sure this gets passed quick by threats, intimidation, lies, everything they can to keep their illegal spying powers in tact. The bill is still the patriot act, except they named it the "freedom act" when it really the "slavery act".

    Now back to your favorite news networks reporting the same exact story verbatim so you can get your mind control like good little slaves.

    1. Re:Sham Bill - American Sheeple Duped Again by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Well let's see if I can find that clip... yea, here it is on YouTube

      This is the one where Holder is asked if bulk collection of data includes members of Congress. Holder's response was basically "We should discuss that offline." Right. So I guess those closed door meetings with Senators is exactly the "forum for discussion" he was talking about.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    2. Re:Sham Bill - American Sheeple Duped Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This was my immediate reaction. They are claiming this stops the bulk collection, which comes from the Patriot Act provision that expires next month. If they want to end bulk collection they would just let that provision expire. Why do they need a new law? Any law they come up with to "stop" the bulk collection will only do the opposite. The article even mentions they would need "specific selection terms" to get the data, which means the data is still being collected. It also mentions they can only get the data "when a court finds there is reasonable suspicion", but does not mention "warrant". So expect more rubber stamping.

  11. Problem solved. by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

    I guess everything's wrapped up in a neat little package.

    Really, I mean that. I'm sorry if it sounded sarcastic.

  12. Re:Starlight Glimmer 2016 by msauve · · Score: 1

    Does Starlight promise blackjack and hookers?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  13. Cleaning their skirts by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The revised bill that makes its way to the House floor this morning doesn't look much like the Freedom Act.

    This morning's bill maintains and codifies a large-scale, unconstitutional domestic spying program. It claims to end "bulk collection" of Americans' data only in a very technical sense: The bill prohibits the government from, for example, ordering a telephone company to turn over all its call records every day.

    But the bill was so weakened in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the last week that the government still can order—without probable cause—a telephone company to turn over all call records for "area code 616" or for "phone calls made east of the Mississippi." The bill green-lights the government's massive data collection activities that sweep up Americans' records in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

    --- Justin Amash

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
    1. Re:Cleaning their skirts by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Your signature doesn't help for such topics.

    2. Re:Cleaning their skirts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is your Govt fucking with you. It greenlights shit under statutory law.
      It still does not, and nothing short of a constitutional amendment will, greenlight any such program under the 4th... it can't.
      So now you sheeple have to go another bullshit round with your sack of shit Govt and revert this new "law" too.

    3. Re:Cleaning their skirts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't yet understand the function of a constitution.
      It doesn't prohibit government fucking. Nothing can. The powerful will always be able to fuck the weak.
      What a constitution does is deny legitimacy to such fucking, so that militias can form to enforce a cease to it, without making the militants feel like rebellious bastards.
      That is, a constitution exists to encourage rebellion against government fucking.

    4. Re:Cleaning their skirts by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      "No, no, we'd never ask you to turn over all your call records! That's illegal. But we do need all your call records for area codes that have an even number in them. Oh, and in an unrelated matter, all call records for area codes that have an odd number in them. Thanks!

      xoxoxo, NSA"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  14. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    388 to 88. That's pretty much a consensus that crosses party lines. I'd say it's a dead program.

  15. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd say it's a dead program.

    No, it's a 'dark' program.... again... kinda-sorta..

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  16. Re:Starlight Glimmer 2016 by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

    Vote Starlight Glimmer for President in 2016. As the equalist candidate, Starlight invites all of America to experience true friendship for the first time. Starlight believes in an America where people don't flaunt their special talents because they have no special talents to flaunt.

    Pretty sure she has been running the country for the last 6 years.

  17. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    388 people who don't matter.

    General Alexander did his program with ZERO and once he'd done it it took years before even the tiniest part of it is possibly starting a process that might lead to its dissembly!

    He even got around the one court that was supposed to keep a check on him. Simply by telling them he needed access to {all records} to search for {terrorist record} and neglecting to tell the court that he intended to store {all records} and search it freely however he pleased for whatever purpose he pleased outside of the court order and that they already knew the data was basically useless for anti-terror work because it was all noise and no signal.

    The bare faced lies told to Congress have never been prosecuted either.

  18. Any vote from the house by MasseKid · · Score: 1

    Any vote from the house, from it's very definition, should have no affect on the 4th amendment, save for a vote on a constitutional amendment. The very idea that a vote on a law by the house would give power or remove power from the 4th is an insult and an attack not on the 4th, but on the constitution its self.

    1. Re:Any vote from the house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metadata about phone calls held by the phone company wouldn't seem to be the persons, papers, or effects of any American. The 4th Amendment doesn't cover this. That's not to say the feds should even have this power, but it's certainly not addressed in the 4th Amendment.

    2. Re:Any vote from the house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metadata about phone calls held by the phone company wouldn't seem to be the persons, papers, or effects of any American. The 4th Amendment doesn't cover this. That's not to say the feds should even have this power, but it's certainly not addressed in the 4th Amendment.

      We have a right to be able to expect privacy under a privacy agreement with a company.

      Sure it is. If I have records in my possession about someone else then the government is violating MY Constitutional rights by demanding those records without a warrant. And it is violating the constitutional rights of the person who I have information about if they are not allowed to have any expectation of privacy even under a privacy agreement with me.

      If they say they are going to sell all my records to the government, then spell it out in the agreement. Otherwise, if they say they won't sell records about me, then I expect them to require the government have a constitutionally valid search warrant before they hand those records over and the government is interfering with my privacy and contract rights to circumvent that.

  19. Meanwhile, north of the U.S.A. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Harper's government, helped by the Liberals, forcefully pushes bill C-51 to make such government spying legal.

    Want to bet a lot of U.S.A. communications are going to go through Canada's carriers before reaching their destination? (even within the U.S.A.)

    1. Re:Meanwhile, north of the U.S.A. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      There was a story years ago that phone companies were routing US long distance traffic through the Canadian network (same as the one used in the US) because it was supposedly cheaper for them to do so. So it wouldn't surprise me if that was still going on or even encouraged by the government.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  20. USA Freedom Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just call it the "Stars and Stripes Red White and Blue Patriot Bald Eagle Flying in Your Face Go USA Go Act?"

    I doubt any branch of congress would ever again pass an act that results in people having more freedom.

  21. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    The bare faced lies told to Congress have never been prosecuted either.

    Where's the incentive?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  22. Like piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thinking this bill will stop them from spying on you is like passing a bill saying ' music piracy is illegal ' and expecting nobody to download anymore

  23. Thank dog for election years by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    ...even though this isn't an election year, per se.

    Sad that we can only hope for some semblance of our lawmakers actually doing their jobs for the barest fraction of time we pay attention to them doing it.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  24. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm with you on that. The telecoms companies got immunity back in 2007, so even if its illegal, they will hand over the data just as they did when it was illegal-illegal, because they get paid to do it, and they get backing from the spooks in regulatory matters/competition matters.

    As long as they get their backs scratched and have immunity, they will do it.

    We have a similar situation in the UK with GCHQ, they have immunity from UK law if they spy on people as long as they have an order from the Secretary of State (i.e. a politician), so they've interpreted away any limits on their surveillance to spy on brits for the NSA or spy on brits for political purposes. If they can't be prosecuted they can't be stopped.

  25. If A Spy Agency Stops Collecting Data on You... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 2

    If a spy agency stops collecting data on you...how do you actually know?

    Strangely enough, having a bunch of politicians say "We voted against it, so we won't collect data on you, promise!" really doesn't seem too compelling to me.

    I think I will be keeping my tinfoil hat on with chin strap secured, thank you very much.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:If A Spy Agency Stops Collecting Data on You... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know because the people in the suits shrugged and said they wouldn't need to worry about you anymore.
      Granted that's the last thing you see and hear, but at least they stopped!

  26. Re:Starlight Glimmer 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Starlight promise blackjack and hookers?

    The April Fools' Day 2006 redesign was still better than Beta.

    Aaw, screw the whole thing!

  27. distraction by markdavis · · Score: 1

    This is a meaningless distraction from the real, underlying issues. Does anyone really believe this will matter at all? First, the spy agencies will likely continue to do whatever they want, just like they always have. Second, this little token doesn't even put the slightest dent in the collection of sensitive data.

    It is appalling we even have the need for a so-called "USA Freedom Act".

  28. Is that a breeze? by dohzer · · Score: 1

    I can feel the winds of change already.

  29. Was There Ever a Law that Allowed Bulk Collection? by linearZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last I checked, a court found that no law existed that allowed bulk collections. Not even the Patriot Act: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05...

    This is a law that makes something illegal that was already illegal. More congressional theater.

    Wake me up when the people who broke the law start seeing some time. Let me know when the guy who exposed this illegal activity is allowed back into the country with his liberty intact.

    --
    Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
  30. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More likely it's just been replaced with something else, after lessons learned from the Snowden reveals.

  31. And: of which communication types by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also -- why the focus on a tiny subset (just Metadata) of a dying communiation system (phone).

    It'd be far more interesting if they'd do something about far more invasive (not just metadata, but content too) that's being captured from (presumably) all internet traffic (skype, email, etc).

    1. Re:And: of which communication types by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping "phone records" includes phone metadata, like keep-alive packets. That's one of the primary concerns to me: by collecting "phone records" they're effectively tracking the physical location of everyone with a powered cell phone (i.e., the vast bulk of people) all the time.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:And: of which communication types by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      That's just the media's focus, not the law's.

      Mostly framed so far as dealing with bulk collection of domestic telephone "metadata," the bipartisan USA Freedom Act addresses activities much broader than phone calls, said government officials and private experts.

      Granted, I haven't been able to find more details than that (on a cursory read of the Wikipedia article, anyway).

  32. Re:Was There Ever a Law that Allowed Bulk Collecti by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Wake me up when the people who broke the law start seeing some time. Let me know when the guy who exposed this illegal activity is allowed back into the country with his liberty intact.

    Good night Mr. van Winkle. We'll wake you in a thousand years.

  33. The phone bulk collection is just ONE program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There must have been over 100 different acronyms from the Snowden files, so why is the media always focusing on just one of those programs?

  34. Why yes by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So Snowden is going to be pardoned by Obama now, right?

    If by "pardoned", you mean "Drone Strike", then yes, Snowden will be "pardoned".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why yes by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I don't think Obama has the stones to carry out a drone strike in Russia, unless he really wants to go to war as Russia isn't like Pakistan. If the administration really wanted to drone him they would have the CIA haul his ass off to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or Yemen and do the deed there.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  35. Re:Starlight Glimmer 2016 by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

    Oops looks I angered one of the hope and change people. Tell me which bothers you more, the complete failure of your guy or it's sheer obviousness ?

  36. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Informative

    388 to 88. That's pretty much a consensus that crosses party lines.

    Why guess that its a consensus that crosses party lines when you can know for a fact how the vote went?

    I see this again and again here on slashdot. Supposed computer nerds averse to the simple act of looking at how exactly a vote went. Often times they guess, and guess wrong. This time you guessed correctly, but thats no excuse for you guessing something so fucking trivial to look up. Every vote in both the House and Senate are documented on their respective websites.

    REPUBLICAN yeas 196 nays 47 nv 1
    DEMOCRATIC yeas 142 nays 41 nv 5

    Its as if you fucks think the information is impossible to get, rather than the exact fucking opposite. For the House its as easy as going to http://clerk.house.gov/ and clicking on the fucking calendar, or entering a query in the search box.

    Even my grandmother can do it. But no, not fucking slashdot people.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  37. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is none. The White House lies to Congress AND the American public. As long as mainstream media glosses it over then there is no incentive.

  38. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    The incentive has to come from the American public, otherwise nothing will happen.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  39. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    REPUBLICAN yeas 196 nays 47 nv 1

    DEMOCRATIC yeas 142 nays 41 nv 5

    Which seems cross-party, so what exactly are you arguing?

  40. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by halivar · · Score: 1

    He wanted a link. And we're "fucks" for not Googling it for him.

  41. day after electoral college meets next yr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the day to do it - doesn't look quite as cowardly as last day (still pretty close) & makes the repubs look like petulant tools (ok, more so) if they try to impeach him in that window.

  42. Kill the USA Freedom Act by bigpat · · Score: 1

    The USA Freedom Act is an Orwellian attempt to extend unlimited surveillance of all Americans. In spirit, in word and in action the USA Freedom Act is a complete and total violation of the US Constitution. The so called limitations on phone record searches are merely symbolic limitations and don't address the unlimited number of non-phone call records that are being collected and doesn't even adequately address limitation on the collection of phone records. The USA Freedom Act will be used to destroy freedom in the US.

  43. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by bigpat · · Score: 1

    388 to 88. That's pretty much a consensus that crosses party lines. I'd say it's a dead program.

    The only thing almost dead in the US is Freedom itself. This is a shameful vote to extend a shameful program without any meaningful limitations.

  44. Re:Was There Ever a Law that Allowed Bulk Collecti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a law that makes something illegal that was already illegal. More congressional theater.

    After reading it more closely, this is a law that allows, with restrictions, something that was previously not allowed at all. This law makes bulk collections legal.

  45. Re:Was There Ever a Law that Allowed Bulk Collecti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a law that makes something illegal that was already illegal. More congressional theater.

    Here let me fix that for you: "This is a law that makes something LEGAL that was already illegal."

    The court found that there was no specific language authorizing the practice of bulk collection. Now the language is more specific... the law says it doesn't allow bulk collection, but then it specifies criteria that will still allow collection of all the records without a valid warrant. So now instead of one order saying "Give me all your records" They will need a few dozen orders saying "give me all your records that match XXX overly broad criteria" that happens to apply to millions of records.

  46. So the passed a law to stop illegal actions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    meaning of course, that there already was a law. Which, I'm pretty sure, didn't stop em.

    So, why does anyone act like this is more than window dressing? You don't stop this by having someone frown at them. If you really wanted to stop this, you'd take away ALL of their money. Freeze all of their assets, zero out their budget.

    But of course, the fact is we don't really want to stop them. We just want to act like it's bad, and that we told them to stop.

  47. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by Talderas · · Score: 1

    Even a modicum of common sense could tell you the Ayes crossed party lines. Neither party even has 388 seats. In fact, anything where the Ayes are 285+ or the Nays are 150- would be pretty safe to assume that it crossed the aisle in significant enough numbers.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  48. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by Straif · · Score: 1

    Or maybe, just maybe, knowing that there are only 245 Republican congressman and 188 Democrats the gp was just commenting on the fact that a vote of 388 indicates exactly what he/she stated, that the bill has bipartisan support and is more likely than not to stand up to any challenges (at least in the House).

    The word "guess" doesn't even appear in their comment.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  49. Honestly? by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

    I was past caring that bulk collection happens back when it was called Carnivore. I care much more now about oversight.

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  50. Not all Congress would agree... by UncleGizmo · · Score: 1

    FYI, at least one Congressman thinks the NSA isn't collecting ENOUGH:

    http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

    --
    Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
  51. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by buck-yar · · Score: 1

    Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress, look what happened to him (nothing).

    Only charges that matter are from DOJ. They have the prisons that you go to if found guilty. Last I knew, Congress didn't have prisons.

  52. Public Repo? by Tharian · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know of something along the lines of a GitHub type of public repo that folks have used to put in the texts of these bills and then updated them with the line changes so that we can see how the bills have changed over time more easily?

    --
    I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek. Nerds make more money.
  53. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by jfengel · · Score: 1

    Every vote in both the House and Senate are documented on their respective websites

    Actually, not quite. There are a number of voice votes, where they don't even take an exact count. They're supposed to be used only when it's unanimous or nearly unanimous, though every once in a while somebody will play silly buggers and put things to a voice vote just to hide who said what. (Usually, when both parties want to avoid having the exact count known, since in theory anybody can request a division, which requires an exact count which will be published.)

    Most votes are actually voice votes. They're generally on workaday issues without a lot of controversy, so it doesn't actually matter all that much. So it is true that all of the *important* votes should be documented on the web sites, but I thought the distinction was worth pointing out.

  54. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by Bartles · · Score: 1

    That's why we need to elect Scott Walker. The Media will gloss over nothing with him.

  55. Re:"Citizens united" was a coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    388 to 88. That's pretty much a consensus that crosses party lines. I'd say it's a dead program.

    Not really. The bill was so watered own, it's own sponsors voted against it.

  56. I'll believe it when I see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suppose this bill passes both the House and Senate and the President signs it into law.

    How do we know that the NSA implemented it? Oh that's right, it will be "illegal" and no one in a super-sekret organization with no accountability will break that law. Trust us.

    What happens to all the data already collected? Perhaps they "delete" it, only to be "accidentally" recovered off of the shadow copy, the mirror image, the disaster recovery server, the VM image, the SAN parity system, the ZFS copies, and the tiered backup system with 80 levels of redundancy, including but not limited to D2D2T imaging.

    I'll believe it when Anonymous hacks into the NSA and demonstrates that they don't have this system or it's data anymore. Which isn't going to happen for all sorts of reasons.

  57. Completely wrong summary by yacc143 · · Score: 1

    Subject should read: House votes to extend Patriot Act, and changes some cosmetics when it comes to telephone meta data collection.

    1.) Without the act, the Patriot Act, which is what allows the intelligence agencies and LE to collect way to much data, would be again illegal and/or practically much harder. The Freedom Act extends the Patriot Act so the agencies can continue legally to collect the data heaps.

    2.) So, the data will be stored at the provider, and they need a court order. And FISA is known to reject at least one request per year (well, most of the years, one cannot be so hostile to our protectors, right), and has never allowed unspecific over broad warrants to be issued, right?