Slashdot Mirror


Senate Passes USA Freedom Act

schwit1 points out that the U.S. Senate has passed the USA Freedom Act by a vote of 67-32, sending it on to President Obama, who is expected to sign it into law. The bill removes mass metadata collection powers from the NSA, but also grants a new set of surveillance powers to replace them. Telecoms now hang on to that data, and the government can access it if they suspect the target is part of a terrorism investigation and one of the call's participants is overseas. "The second provision revived Tuesday concerns roving wiretaps. Spies may tap a terror suspect's communications without getting a renewed FISA Court warrant, even as a suspect jumps from one device to the next. The FISA Court need not be told who is being targeted when issuing a warrant. The third spy tool renewed is called "lone wolf" in spy jargon. It allows for roving wiretaps. However, the target of wiretaps does not have to be linked to a foreign power or terrorism."

27 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Meet the New Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Same as the Old Act.
    I wanna get fooled again!

    1. Re:Meet the New Act by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Now tell me again why is it that we don't need a third party in this country ?

      Because so long as we have first-past-the-post voting rules, game theory tends to render third parties irrelevant. Example: the several "third" parties that currently *do* exist in the US, but rarely if ever win elections.

      So lets support Bernie Sander with money and time, probably the best chance we've got at weakening the strangle-hold the wealthy have on this country.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Meet the New Act by DamnOregonian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      56% against vs. 44% for is "slightly more against the bill"
      2% against vs. 98% for is "overwhelmingly in favor of it"
      50% against vs. 50% for is "mostly split"

      where's the bullshit?

    3. Re:Meet the New Act by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or any of the many instant-runoff or proportional representation methods. Unfortunately, as hard as the established parties will fight against limits on their wealthy gravy-train, I suspect they'll fight *much* harder against any fundamental changes to the election system they've currently captured. And considering that it would take a constitutional amendment to change the rules, I'd say it' a non-starter until we've managed to take back a measure of control over both congress and the state legislatures.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Meet the New Act by dryeo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Big government is the problem

      So true, first we need to get rid of the checks and balances as they're all bloat. The bureaucracy involved in things like "Freedom of Information" laws needs to be cut along with bullshit like the government having to keep records of meeting with campaign contributors and other important people.
      Ideally we can reduce the government down to one man who can dictate to us how wonderful small government is.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Meet the New Act by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      About twice as many Democrats voted for it. Only 1 Democrat voted against it compared to 30 republicans. That's a very significant difference.

      It was poorly ordered. I think the intended meaning was "slightly more against it than for it", but because of it being right after the post about the Democrats, most folks read it as "slightly more against it than the Democrats".

      The biggest problem, IMO, is why the Republicans were against it. Most of them seemed to vote against it not because it gave the government too much power, but because it gave the government too little. For example, they bring us folks like Mitch McConnell claiming that the lack of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. (sic) Act is going to cause terrorism-related deaths in the U.S., rather than recognizing that the colossal resources and manpower that are going into data collection would be much more effectively spent in a more targeted way that didn't catch so many innocent people in the dragnet, and that the mere existence of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. (sic) Act that he so staunchly supports makes us more likely to miss a real terrorist threat rather than less.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Meet the New Act by tburkhol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Australia has experimented with various alternate voting methods including compulsory voting, still get the authoritarian right wing types in government.

      People like authoritarian, protective governments. They like for someone to focus their fear on a particular movement or group. They like to think that something is being done about that threat. They know they're not doing anything wrong and will be untouched by those protective measures. Even if there is some small consequence, the security is worth it.

      These people don't speak, so you don't know they exist. They're part of the 95% of slashdot readers who have never posted a comment. They don't have strong opinions. They are good people, always ready with a smile and a wave, always ready to help a neighbor in need, and never asking for anything in return. They just want to go about their life, and a strong, protective government with visible police and pro-active defense is very comforting.

    7. Re:Meet the New Act by buck-yar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1984 taught you how to tar and feather well.

      Libertarian does not equal anarchy. Only people opposed to freedom for others make such deceptive statements.

  2. Shell Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Watch the Law Closely as i cover it and mix the shells up....

  3. The hawks are either vicious or stupid by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because most of the public's concern could have been ended with some tight language that said that under no circumstances can the NSA intelligence products or systems be used to support an ordinary criminal investigation and any such use by law enforcement constitutes a severe felony offense. Right or wrong, most of the public wouldn't care if the target was literally in the law, only those accused of espionage or terrorism. The public really lost its shit when it came out that ordinary drug dealers were being busted with NSA resources and the cops were lying their asses off to the courts.

    1. Re:The hawks are either vicious or stupid by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That statute would be the freedom version of Security Theater.

      There is no way to prevent Agents of the Executive Branch from giving tips to law enforcement. It's called the First Amendment, and it applies to everyone. You could prevent them from sending actual data files from work over, but a simple phone call saying "Mr. FBI Man, you really should get a warrant to look at this phone number for drug smuggling," or "Mr. FBI Man, this guy is talking to some terrorists" cannot be prevented by statute. It's similar to the laws "forcing" you to declare the $5 bill you found on Line 21 of your tax return. Perfectly valid legally but of no effect in real life.

  4. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The FISA Court need not be told who is being targeted when issuing a warrant."

    why the fuck not!

    1. Re:huh? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because everyone is a suspect

    2. Re:huh? by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Because, if they can show probable cause that something (info regarding terrorism) will be found somewhere (on a phone call), they're not required to (unless they're seizing a person). And why not? The person's identity may be unknown, maybe that's what they're searching for.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  5. Crack addicts by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You didn't think the government was going to give up their addiction to surveillance crack that easily, did you?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  6. Re:Rand who? by guises · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You kidding? It did tons of good. Did you see that thread the other day? People falling over themselves to talk about how great he was and how they wanted to vote for him. Some of those people are going to read this now and realize that the whole thing was just more grandstanding, but some are not. Not everyone sees every story, not everyone gets the whole picture, and as long as some people wind up with a perception of the shining hero then the song and dance has done some good.

  7. Of course they did ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... it's the goddam Freedom Act.

    It's like calling it the "Save The Little Kitty Cats Act."

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  8. If you like ironic titles, I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If our Congressmen had been in the Bundestag in the 1930s, they would have passed something like the "Freedom for Jews Act".

  9. Re:In other words... by zlives · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yeah cause telco's won't enjoy passing the "service fee" downwards to poor shlubs that think they are the customers.

  10. Out of scope? by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the target of wiretaps does not have to be linked to a foreign power or terrorism.

    I thought the point of the NSA was that they were meant to protect domestic communications from external threats. If the target is not linked to external threats, how can it be justified?

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    1. Re:Out of scope? by NoKaOi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the target of wiretaps does not have to be linked to a foreign power or terrorism.

      I thought the point of the NSA was that they were meant to protect domestic communications from external threats. If the target is not linked to external threats, how can it be justified?

      It doesn't have to be justified. That's the whole point of the Patriot Act and USA Freedom Act. If it were justified, that means they had probable cause and could get a normal warrant and wouldn't need the USA Freedom Act.

  11. Re:Rand who? by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of good his little song and dance did... Eh, easy to speak up when nobody is listening.

    He single-handedly blocked continuation of authorization of mass metadata collection. That's what he did. A whole hell of a lot more than any of those other pukes did. You don't see mass metadata collection being re-authorized by this new act, do you? That's right. It's not.

    Yeah, this new act sucks. And guess what? It passed on the strength of democrats being in the tank by an absurd 43-1 margin. Republicans opposed it by 30-23.

  12. Freedom is worth $1.05 by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Team America: World Police.

    Seriously, though, we all know (or those of us with CT experience), that the only programs that have worked are those in the Middle East and nearby countries. Spying on Americans in America has proved very worthless. Traditional police investigations using targetted individual warrants and traditional police interrogation (not torture) have resulted in all the successes to date.

    We need to stop wasting time on promoting Fear to justify wasting taxes on unneeded spying and focus on the true threats, which are not here.

    That said, expect numerous false flag media reports over the next few weeks in a vain attempt to prove we should all live in Fear.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  13. Re:Rand who? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He single-handedly blocked continuation of authorization of mass metadata collection.

    That is not true.
    The Freedom Act, nor any amendments that passed committee (none of them, to McConnell's dismay) allowed for that. The bill was designed to reform the metadata collection, and it did so.
    Now don't get me wrong- it's awesome that he stood up and blocked this horse shit for 11 hours, but he didn't stop the tide, nor did he have the power to.

  14. Where is the _FREEDOM_ in that 'usa freedom act'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have but one question to ask:

    Where is the *FREEDOM* in that 'usa freedom act'?

  15. Re:Where is the _FREEDOM_ in that 'usa freedom act by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, it's classic doublespeak, designed to shut down any debate or dissension. To oppose The USA Freedom act is to publicly come out against the USA and Freedom. Just like opposition to the PATRIOT act branded you an unpatriotic apple-pie-hating flag-burning radical.

    It also speaks volumes about how brazen our so-called representatives have become. They don't even try hide it - It's right there in your face, and if you don't like it, too bad. There's nothing you can do about it.

  16. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...and the terrorists won AGAIN--without any terrorist attacks or attempts on U.S. soil in years.