Slashdot Mirror
Patriot Act Spy Powers To Expire As Rand Paul Blocks USA Freedom Act Vote
Saturday, we mentioned that three major spying powers that the U.S. government has exercised under the Patriot Act might be nixed, as the sections of the Act granting authority to use them expires. The Daily Dot reports that Senator (and presidential contender) Rand Paul today used Senate rules to block a bill which would have extended those powers, which means that as of midnight Sunday on the U.S. east coast, sections 206, 207 and 215 of the Patriot Act will have expired. Says the Daily Dot's article, linked by reader blottsie:
The reform bill, which the House passed before leaving town for a week-long recess, would end the government's bulk collection of Americans' phone records under the Patriot Act's controversial Section 215 but leaves the other two provisions intact. ... Sunday's procedural meltdown was the second narrow defeat for the USA Freedom Act. In a late-night session on Friday, May 22, the bill fell three votes short of an initial procedural step after [Senate Majority Leader] McConnell lobbied hard against it. The Senate's failure to meet its deadline was a blow to President Obama, who on Friday had warned lawmakers that the country would be vulnerable if the USA Freedom Act did not pass.
I am so jittery... as the clock strikes Midnight I will no longer bask in the protective glow of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. I cannot fall asleep without the reassuring sound of telephone records being gathered. Surely something awful will happen tonight or tomorrow. Maybe I will try to organize the neighborhood for a continuous vigil until the Act is restored. But first, I'll just turn on the radio and catch some news...
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
So he did one thing you agree with. The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy.
That's a useful technique - agreeing or conceding the immediate issue, while making nebulous unsupported statements about everything else. Look to see this for the next year or so. "I agree with him on this issue, but everything else is crazy".
...problem is, that "agreeing on this one issue" seems to happen a lot. Like, for most issues.
Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)
In order to keep America safe, does anyone know where I can send my emails and phone records to until this whole misunderstanding is resolved? I'd hate for a terrorist to get me because my information was private.
. . . under the dictatorship of Obama - and we will make sure that all the supporters of dictator Obama will get booted from the Capitol Hill
Wait, is this sarcasm? You're gunning for the funny mod, right?
Because, A., the PATRIOT Act (writing the word "patriot" in reference to these orwellian measures makes my stomach turn, but that's not what I'm talking about here) was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., and passed under their stern, wagging fingers, and, B., Obama operates from the White House, whereas it is the Congress whose building is Capitol Hill.
I'm confused because Paragraph 2 is an accurate representation of the current state of affairs. I mean, Obama is a far sight short of his promises, much like most Democrats these days, and totally wrong on this issue, but he is way less of a totalitarian/authoritarian than CRB executive was. And, at least one or two of his policies are meant for the benefit of the Plebs.
Please spare me the history lesson, dude
I do need to ask you a question, tho ...
Who is the one coming out asking the Congress to extend the Patriot Act?
Was it Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., or was it Obama?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
:-) Which PEOPLE are you talking about?
"If you're not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?" said Tom Charlton, 64, a retired sales training manager for a tire company, who was first in line at a book-signing with Paul in Davenport. "If this can stop one attack, it's worth infringing on legal citizens' rights."...
"I don't want the mall to get bombed because they didn't get the information they needed," said [Vivian] Martin...
Sally Cram, 62, said after leaving a town hall meeting with Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) that she supports the NSA program because "I'm a person who believes our government tells us the truth."...
These are the American citizens who keep this stuff alive, because they believe... It doesn't matter if Rand Paul is occasionally right. Being "right" has very little to do with anything.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You think we have a "representative democracy" here in the US?
Representative of whom? Do you believe this government represents you? Do you think it represents the will of the people?
https://www.opensecrets.org/pa...
https://www.opensecrets.org/ov...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Debt is a distraction. The country's had a debt since the very first administration, and conservatives have been predicting imminent doom and gloom every year. Except it hasn't happened, each generation's standard of living increases, grandkids are better off than their grandparents. Reagan proved deficits don't matter, after campaigning against Carter's $68 billion deficit then raising that by a factor of four.
The private sector thrives on debt and money creation. Government should too. If government spends money financed at zero cost through the Fed to improve the General Welfare, why would unexpected, runaway inflation occur? But as a hedge, index all incomes to inflation to eliminate any inflation tax. Indexation guarantees purchasing power does not decrease.
In conclusion, Rand Paul's economics are feudal, archaic. We can and should spend more on social services, such as a Basic Income.
Does anyone really think they, the NSA, is not going to spy, with or without approval? We have no way to control them, they hold all the cards!
The have always spied and that part will never cease. But it's time to shake them up a little.
1. If it can and will be abused, refrain from building it in the first place.
2. If it has been built, see that it is laid bare to the greatest extent possible and dismantled.
3. For egregious offenses, the offending Agency must be completely disbanded, its assets liquidated, and formed anew.
4. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. (only joking!)
The United States is presently under attack, by itself, in a way even Stalin was unable to achieve given the limited technology of his time. Due to a lack of transparency and believability, a technological renaissance with (apparently) no moral compass steered by Charter, the NSA has likely deployed assets and capabilities for domestic surveillance. The following attack vectors cannot be ruled out:
There is an unknown, possibly massive tapping of the backbone network occurring. Utah Data Center's central location is a clue. Thomas Drake, Bill Binney and Mark Klein have all come forward alleging domestic surveillance far exceeding 'telephone records'. Klein is of especial note, for it is he who revealed the existence of Room 641A in the lawsuit Heptig vs AT&T that EFF took almost to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case on the basis that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 protected AT&T from liability for involvement with any illegal activities. A law passed after the lawsuit was filed. In response to it, even.
That should make you a bit angry. We're not talking about telephone records here. We're talking about fiber splitting with drop-in access to the whole slurp. To any future despot this means that the United States may be prepared to deliver real-time private communications and databases of activity for its citizens, cradle to grave. Why the fuck would anyone want to build this thing, unless they were insane? James Bamford hinted at the possibility that NSA was 'going domestic' in his 1982 book Puzzle Palace as he suggests its interest in developing technology for bulk microwave gathering. That is to be expected as this technology was deployed worldwide. But the way they wished to go about it was a bit... peculiar:
Another indication of NSA's "broadband sweeping of multi-circuited domestic telecommunications trunk lines," David L. Watters told the Senate Intelligence Committee [in 1978!] lies in the Agency's request for an amendment to the wiretap law that would permit NSA to engage in warrantless wiretapping "for the sole purpose of determining the capability of equipment" when such "test period shall be limited... to... ninety days." Continuing, he warned: "Let there be no misunderstanding here. There is only one category of wiretapping equipment or system which requires up to ninety days for test and adjustment, and that system is broadband electronic eavesdropping equipment, the vacuum-cleaner approach to intelligence gathering, the general search of microwave trunk lines. I make this assertion on the strength of actual experience in the electronic intelligence trade and on the strength of over twenty-five years' experience in the telecommunications profession. An ordinary, single-line wire tap requires only five minutes to adjust and test."
NSA should not have wanted th
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Except that we aren't bringing any more money... minor little detail you left out in your post.
While the Laffer curve undoubtedly exists, every single tax-cut experiment in the last 30 years in the USA suggests we are already to the left of the peak, and hence lower taxes simply means lower revenues.
This should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention to economic data rather than GOP talking points.
p.s. In fact this was a surprise to myself and many other economists. They had guesstimated the peak of the Laffer curve around a top marginal rate of 40-60%, now all evidence suggests is around 75%.
p.p.s. I'm opposed to a marginal rate of 75%, but not because lowering it would mean increased revenues: facts show that it doesn't.
what do you mean "we should spend more on basic income"???
are you saying i should just quit my job because the government ( you) will pay for it? THANK YOU!!! ive been waiting for this day for so long!!!!
Yes, basically. Firstly, why not? It will provide enough for basic food and basic shelter but little in the way of luxury. We are rich enough collectively to make sure everyone gets to eat and have a roof over their heads.
Secondly, this is more or less already the case.
The thing is if you have a basic income, you can also scrap a whole bunch of laws. Minimum wage, tax credits, food stamps, all that can just go in the bin. The basic income is more transparent and simpler. It also doesn't require vulnerable people to dealwith vast amounts of government buearacracy.
Finally it subsidises rich companies less. At the moment many large companies etc don't pay a living wage, so people need to get employed and then get some form if income support. Oh and people are trapped living paycheck to paycheck so the companies can more or less be as evil as they like. Once people have a basic income, they have the choice whether to sell labour for that price and also have much more freedom in negotiations.
Most of the arguments seem win-win to me.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
are carefully selected by corporate money/the rich who own them then there is no real change since it's the same hand up the ass of both party puppets.