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."

53 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      Now tell me again why is it that we don't need a third party in this country ?
      It's a real pity we can't drop a couple of bombs on Congress. Fucking traitors that they are.

    2. 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.
    3. Re:Meet the New Act by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am totally, completely in favor of building up a third party to rival these two.

      Speaking of parties, here is the count:

      YEAs: 67 (D = 43, R = 23, I = 1)
      NAYs: 32 (D = 1, R = 30, I = 1)
      Not voting: 1 (R)

      Republicans were slightly more against the bill, Democrats were overwhelmingly in favor of it, and the two Independents were mostly split.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    4. Re:Meet the New Act by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Informative

      My favorite explanation for those interested to learn more about what you are talking about.

      http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

      (I post this pretty much every time the subject of third parties comes up, but I feel that it's really worth getting people to understand why we as a society can't get what we actually want despite society being built on the principles of democracy.)

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    5. 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?

    6. 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.
    7. Re:Meet the New Act by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Australia has experimented with various alternate voting methods including compulsory voting, still get the authoritarian right wing types in government. Here in Canada (and the UK) where we also have first past the post elections, having more parties has also resulted in the authoritarian right wingers getting in leading to the tyranny of the minority situation.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Meet the New Act by jdavidb · · Score: 2

      I am totally, completely in favor of building up a third party to rival these two.

      Then there can be three sets of clowns pretending to have substantively different views while all favoring the expansion of government power.

    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. Re:Meet the New Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The kind of people who are willing to trade security for liberty, correct?

      We can still do things to lessen the damages being done.
      1. 12 year term limit for members of Congress.
      2. Require congressional districts to be compact. See: Iowa. Perhaps even drawn by middle school students.
      3. The top six vote-getters of the previous presidential election automatically getting ballot access to the following. This includes independent candidates.

      As nice as it would be to have IRV or other voting methods, I feel that should be left up to the individual states. Same goes for how electoral votes are done. However, requiring a run-off really should be required along with moving towards a vote-by-mail option for those who want it. See: Washington state.

      A better civics class in middle and/or high school would be nice.

    14. Re:Meet the New Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      Actually IIRC it would not take a Constitutional amendment.

      The Electoral College which actually selects the President is composed of electors chosen by each state with the specifics of how those electors are chose left pretty vague.

      If a state chose to use an instant runoff to decide who get's their EC votes I think the'd be in the clear constitutionally, and if all states did it that way you'd get most of the benefits of the system (encouraged to vote for the best candidate without it "splitting the vote" for the lesser evil of the two big parties).

    15. Re:Meet the New Act by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      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.

      "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."

      -Blazing Saddles

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    16. Re:Meet the New Act by Creepy · · Score: 2

      Franken always votes with Obama, so how is that a surprise, lol. Don't know Klobuchar's excuse, probably Obama's bitch, too.

      Not sure why the others opposed it, but I know why I oppose it - it allows bulk vacuuming calls made on non-phones, like Skype, VoIP, etc. and frees any company providing information to the NSA about these calls from liability. Also, extends section 215 by 4 years, has an added watchperson for FISA but any or all information can be redacted from that person, allows a nebulously defined "emergency powers provision," etc. The bill is highly flawed and ripe for the exact same type of NSA overextension as the Patriot Act gave them.

      Not to mention the NSA scare tactic of saying if the dragnet goes down, people will die. The admitted ZERO terrorists caught by the dragnet proves this.

  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 phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      From the polls I've seen, the public hasn't "lost its shit" yet. The majority is kind of ok with this, which is why it continues.

      See also: TSA. Last time I had to go through security, I complained about the inane procedures, and the person behind me said, "yeah, but it's keeping us safe." I ended the conversation there, didn't even try to argue.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. 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: What does "not linked to terrorism" mean? by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 2

    Not linked to terrorism = and anyone else we samn please

    --
    ...
  7. 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.

  8. 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.
    1. Re:Of course they did ... by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      ... it's the goddam Freedom Act.

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

      The Terrorists envy our freedom so this law takes what remains and holds it for safekeeping.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:Of course they did ... by NoKaOi · · Score: 2

      It gives the NSA the freedom to violate the constitution and do whatever the fuck they want.

  9. 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".

  10. Please stop propogating lies by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The bill removes mass metadata collection powers from the NSA"

    Unanimous 2nd circuit decision says no, original authors of the patriot act say no. Yet media completely ignores the issue and assumes without question patriot act authorized any such thing to begin with.

    Third party doctrine predates the patriot act and Hayden goes around publically gloating Article II powers stemming from Bush era AUMF is the source of his authority.

    Even if patriot act were left to expire wholesale without "USA Freedom Act" resurrection those against this FUD powered insanity were never even in the game.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. Follow the Money by Yoik · · Score: 2

    This will be a financial boon to the telecom industry. The black budgets are going to have to come up with money to pay for the storage and retrieval by the telcos. I expect this to be quite profitable for them. There are also going to be some nice contracts for redesigning the systems now that the stakeholders have changed.

  14. 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.

  15. 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! --
  16. 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.

  17. Re:Government backronyms by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

    I find the overt references to 1984 to be too cliche. A more subtle homage would have been more appropriate. Less is more.

  18. 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'?

  19. Re:Where is the _FREEDOM_ in that 'usa freedom act by Sassinak · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the words of Futurama: "My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom it's almost sickening. We're free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don't want to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster". That is really the only freedom you have.

    --
    God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
  20. How about by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

    Instead of making the names of our laws acronyms, we make the texts of the laws into rap lyrics. That should make everyone realize how important and official they are.

  21. And for others to foot the bill.... by Wild_dog! · · Score: 2

    Nice to force companies to have to spend more money spontaneously to hang on to this data.
    Nice clandestine tax on an entire industry.

  22. Welp by nensondubois · · Score: 2

    Rand Paul seems like the best option. Too bad the presidential race is an American Idol contest.

    This is why it needs to be mandatory for all congress people who vote for 'insert bill', how much money was donated by who/what causes... there to be publicly displayed... oh wait there will never be a law for that because it conflicts with their interests.

    --
    http://gamehacking.org/vb/threads/12747-nensondubois-codes http://twitter.com/nensondubois_
  23. Re:Rand who? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    As I said in a previous thread, an alternative plan had already been laid out, so the old one could be allowed to die... with great public fanfare from Mr. Paul, and everybody comes out stinking like a rose. You are absolutely right, hardly anybody sees the big picture. That is what these little side shows are for. I can assure you that if he had any real power, he would not be biting these peoples' ankles. Once you hit the big time, you don't go around tipping apple carts. And it did accomplish nothing but bump up the ad rates on the TV news for a short while. The laws are back in place, as if the NSA needs authorization, and republicans and democrats will continue to dominate.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  24. Commercial Company by randalware · · Score: 2

    Now the phone companies can (outragously over) charge the NSA for handling it's customer tracking information service requests.
    And bill for the increase in consultant manpower to handle the new processes.
    Using a surplus government data center in Utah for cheap.

    Wait until the consultants & employees start spying on their wives, husbands, girlfriends, boy friends, coworkers, ex's of all types, children, and any competetion.

    Not just 1984, but totally global corporate warfare !

    Wouldn't you like to play a nice game of chess ?

    --
    This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
  25. Re:Rand who? by fnj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What part of what has been going on did you not understand?

    Section 215 of the Patsiot Act, the one that authorized mass metadata collection, sunseted on Monday at 0000 hours because Rand Paul blocked Bitch McConnell railroading in a clean extension. It has been dead since then. Kaput. It was well on the way to being adjudicated unconstitutional anyway, but that has been 13 years coming, and still not 100% settled. Thanks to Rand Paul - and nobody else - that thing is now dead, regardless of whether the constitutionality is ever 100% settled.

    It was dead Monday, and it is still dead. The Freedom Act did not re-enact it. Bitch was trying to sneak in an extension so it wouldn't have to be re-enacted, but the son of a bitch got his ass handed to him by Rand. It is no less dead after passage of the Freedom Act horse shit.

  26. Re:Rand who? by fnj · · Score: 3, Informative

    Spin it any way you want, the fact stands that an evil, bad bill failed Republican support 23-30 and won Democrat support 43-1. Period. Live with it.

    There are plenty of people, Republicans and others, who want to stamp out islamists carrying on war against the US and all civilized parts of the world, but we don't want to trample the rights and protections of innocents to do it.

  27. Re:Where is the _FREEDOM_ in that 'usa freedom act by davester666 · · Score: 3

    same place as Patriot in the patriot act.

    shoved really far up your ass with a nightstick.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  28. 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.

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

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

  30. Re:FreeeeeDOOOM! by buck-yar · · Score: 2

    Doublethink straight out of 1984.