Slashdot Mirror
Congress Is Trying To Expand The Patriot Act (rare.us)
An anonymous reader writes: The house is scheduled to vote in an hour or so on expanding provisions of the patriot act, allowing massive financial information sharing to include dozens of new offenses ("specified unlawful activities"), including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The house bill is H.R. 5606. My quick read is that this essentially lets FEDGOV expand massive semi-secret databases of financial transactions without a warrant while protecting banks from liability for helping them. In 5 years from 2002-2007, for example, with a smaller ability this led to 35,000 suspects but there were only 21 search warrants. Call your representative. Rare.us reports: "The proposed bill, H.R. 5606, expands Section 314 of the Patriot Act to cover non-terrorism or money laundering related investigations. Critics claim that the bill is a threat to the privacy of innocent Americans and is being rammed through Congress without debate. Section 314 encourages law enforcement to share information with financial institutions on money laundering and terrorism. It also encourages financial institutions to share information with each other." The report says the House Liberty Caucus, led by Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.), opposes the bill, claiming that Treasury Department regulations will compromise the privacy of Americans as it will all but mandate financial institutions to share information with the government. The caucus also opposes the bill because it is being brought to the floor under a suspension of the rules, and is not being considered under "regular order." The bill's sponsor, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC) described HR 5606 as an attempt "to stop the flow of illicit dollars to criminals and terror organizations."
I'm sure Republicans just love having big government all up in their bank accounts, meanwhile us little people get fucked when the feds decide to seize everything we own and not give it back for years because they thought we were trying to launder money, or worse, look like we're trying to not look like we're laundering money, because we made a deposit just under whatever the limit is for reporting people's deposits are this week.
Someday, we'll end the war on drugs and end this bullshit, but we'll need a political party that actually believes in small government to do that.
I just fracking love how they offer us "share information with financial institutions on money laundering and terrorism" as if the two are of equal value in the good and evil matrix.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
"The House Liberty Caucus, led by Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.), has come out in opposition to the bill ..."
"Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) is the main co-sponsor of the legislation."
"The bill's sponsor, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC)..."
It's a bipartisan thing. You should be happy!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's completely in line with her 'fairly-progressive stance on many social issues'. She has never met a government power she doesn't like, just like all 'progressives'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Will apple pullout if forced to unlock phones?
I can see under trump laws like that being passed.
Hillary is more of a "stay the course" candidate than Trump.
If you are betting the odds then Hillary is more likely to pass those types of laws than Trump.
Trump realizes that we have to fix things, and he wouldn't push businesses out of the US over something as ineffective as this.
Say what you want about Trump, but he knows business and isn't easily swayed by political spin.
And this won't be the main issue in the election anyway. Stability in ones lifestyle (meaning: the ability to make a living) is the big issue, which in practical terms means the economy and job availability.
That's what everyone's worried about: whether they'll have a job next year.
Other considerations are secondary to this one issue.
Not to mention like most 'conservatives'.
Dunno, did Bush count as a liberal?
Honestly, both parties have absolutely sucked at reducing government.
Both parties have excelled at reducing liberties and increasing criminalization of behavior.
The insurance companies WERE the death panels. What do you think happens when you have a critical medical problem and your "care" is a visit to the ER instead of the appropriate regimen of drugs and/or therapy and/or surgery?
I'll tell you what happens: they bill you, you can't pay, they turn you over to debt collection, they destroy your financial reputation (assuming you have one), and you go on being sicker and sicker. And then you DIE.
Single payer is the sane answer for the average person. For rich people, no, it's not needed. Rich people, however, are a tiny minority. But they do comprise congress -- every seat. The average worth of a congressperson is seven figures. And we wonder why the poor people constantly get the shaft. Christ on a crutch. This nation is insane.
"establishment" Republicans and Democrats agreeing on something is always bad.
People who hate this garbage have a VERY easy solution within grasp. Slap down all the politicians in DC with a real frightening act. Scare the crap out of them all, no matter how entrenched, in both parties.
How?
Support House Speaker Paul Ryan's opponent, Paul Nehlen, in the Wisconsin congressional primary. They guy is not a politician and is way out-gunned on the cash front as every corrupt interest in DC will stuff cash into Speaker Ryan. Very little about Nehlen matters other than that he opposes Ryan generally and on a couple of major issues most of us hate. The point is to send a message and do it with only one congress member's seat. I do not know the guy and have no connection to him, it's not important. It's the upset apple cart that matters.
If the public, and most-particularly his own party in his own district, knocks-out the Speaker of the House, consultants and career politicians in DC will go into full-panic mode. When Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated in his primary, his fellow party members in DC began to panic, but then the leadership quieted that down by convincing them it was a very unique situation, and they appeared to be right as the voters quieted-down after that election. The Speaker, however, is a very important position in government. The Speaker is #2 in line to the Presidency, behind only the Vice President in the line-of-succession and nobody in DC ever expects a House Speaker to lose his own base at home -- it's just inconceivable to the political class that the people would toss-out a person in such a powerful position, who can use that position to squeeze perks from lobbyists.
The GOP will certainly be in control of the House after November, their majority is too large to be realistically vulnerable, so there's no reason for anybody of any party not to back Ryan's primary opponent. No matter who wins the Ryan seat, the balance of power in DC will not change. Ryan losing however might finally frighten the rest of the morons in congress into thinking maybe they should spend a little more time on what the people want and less on what the lobbyists who fund the incumbents of both parties want.
If you love TPP and H1-B visas, then do nothing. Paul Ryan is a huge supporter of both and is clearly your guy. He will either help Hillary pass TPP and any related offal or try to stop Donald from opposing/limiting them. If you are sick of H1-B visa abuses and oppose TPP and all the other multi-national corporate garbage, you can get a lot of bang for your campaign buck by helping just one candidate (Nehlen) spank one particular incumbent (Ryan). Replacing a guy of one party with a guy from the same party is a very easy lift compared to flipping a seat from DEM-to-REP or from REP-to-DEM. Replacing Ryan is the violence-free and gunpowder-free political equivalent of a rifle shot as opposed to a political shotgun blast - a narrowly-targeted high-reward play.
She has never met a government power she doesn't like, just like all 'progressives'.
It's adorable you think conservatives aren't the same way. The only real difference between them is how they prefer to fund their government expansions and which social programs they favor. Liberals prefer taxes and conservatives prefer to borrow the money. Neither one of them has the slightest real interest in reducing government in general. There hasn't been a single instance where the overall size and reach of the government has been reduced outside of draw downs from major wars in the last 150 years. Doesn't matter which party is in power, the result is the same. If you think conservatives "never met a government power they didn't like" then you aren't paying any attention. They like power first and foremost no matter what spin they try to put on it.