Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the big-brother-has-his-eye-on-you-just-the-same dept.

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.

36 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. 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...?

  2. 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 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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!

  3. 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 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.

    3. 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.

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

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

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    5. 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.

  4. 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 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. "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 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?
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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!”
  11. 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.)

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  12. 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!

  13. 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!

  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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).

  17. 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."
  18. 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)
  19. 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.

  20. 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.
  21. 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.