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.

Comments

They've invested billions

[msobkow]

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.

Re:They've invested billions

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

Snowden...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data"

[MobyDisk]

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."

Re:"Citizens united" was a coup

[fustakrakich]

I'd say it's a dead program.

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

Re:Whatever...

[Noah Haders]

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.

Was There Ever a Law that Allowed Bulk Collection?

[linearZ]

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.

And: of which communication types

[ron_ivi]

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).

Re: Whatever...

[meta-monkey]

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.