Slashdot Mirror
Congress Is About To Vote On Expanding the Warrantless Surveillance of Americans (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: On Tuesday afternoon, a handful of U.S. Representatives will convene to review an amendment that would reauthorize warrantless foreign surveillance and expand the law so that it could include American citizens. It would, in effect, legalize a surveillance practice abandoned by the NSA in 2017 in order to appease the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which found the NSA to have abused its collection capacity several times. If it passes Tuesday's review, the bill may be voted on by the U.S. House of Representatives as early as Thursday. Drafted by the House Intelligence Committee last December, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 is an amendment to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It is one of six different FISA-related bills under consideration by Congress at the moment, but by far the most damaging to the privacy rights of American citizens.
FISA was enacted in 1978, but Section 702, referred to by former FBI Director James Comey as the "crown jewels of the intelligence community," wasn't added until 2008. This section allows intelligence agencies to surveil any foreigner outside the U.S. without a warrant that the agency considers a target. The problem is that this often resulted in the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens as well due to two loopholes known as "backdoor searches" and "about collection." Backdoor search refers to a roundabout way of monitoring Americans' communications. Since intelligence agencies are able to designate any foreigner's communications as a target for surveillance, if this foreigner has communicated with an American this means this American's communications are then also considered fair game for surveillance by the agency.
FISA was enacted in 1978, but Section 702, referred to by former FBI Director James Comey as the "crown jewels of the intelligence community," wasn't added until 2008. This section allows intelligence agencies to surveil any foreigner outside the U.S. without a warrant that the agency considers a target. The problem is that this often resulted in the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens as well due to two loopholes known as "backdoor searches" and "about collection." Backdoor search refers to a roundabout way of monitoring Americans' communications. Since intelligence agencies are able to designate any foreigner's communications as a target for surveillance, if this foreigner has communicated with an American this means this American's communications are then also considered fair game for surveillance by the agency.
The government absolutely needs to the legal ability to keep the 99% under constant surveillance in order to ensure that they don't rise up against the 1%, after all.
You're going to be surveilled, whether it's legal or not, so you might as well just legalise it and give up the pretence that you live in a free country.
Dumbshits
It would, in effect, legalize a surveillance practice abandoned by the NSA in 2017...
AND hey, this is what we do in the United State of America: sling on agenda measures on to bills that are either completely 180 to what it's being appended to, ambiguous loopholes to get around the bill up for question or, in cases like this, just Texas Hold'em all-in.
Don't care if there is some piece of paper that 'says what they do', it's happening now, and hasn't ceased just because Snowdon.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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."
Stupid little thing called the 4th Amendment... Any conflicts?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Bring it on.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
[Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.]
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Well, I tried.
I used to work with a few Syrian expatriates who were nominally Muslim. They were shocked at the level of Saudi influence in the mosques in our region and had to really bounce around to find one that was not on the take. That's their word, not mine. They could not believe that we'd spend so much time and money on "surveillance," but allow what would be the equivalent of open KGB recruitment (as in uniformed Soviet officers at career fairs) on college campuses during the Cold War.
I have a much simpler and less constitutionally dangerous solution:
1. Pass a law forbidding the funding of any domestic organization by a foreign government except the Vatican.
2. Authorize the use the corporate death penalty and full asset forfeiture for any organization convicted of intentionally accepting that funding.
3. Pass a law that amends immigration law to provide for the banishment of any foreigner who is convicted of espionage or sedition.
4. Prosecute all extremist preachers (like Wahabis and Salafists) under the Sedition Act.
5. Pass a law providing the courts with the discretionary power to remove the citizenship of any foreign-born person who is convicted of sedition or espionage
In 2008, DEMOCRATS controlled both the House and the Senate.
Hey, they had to lay the groundwork for a surveillance regime to use against Trump.
Why else would we need the FBI to use a bogus "dossier" to get a FISA warrant against Trump's campaign and then have UN Ambassador Susan Rice unmask all of them?
And then feed all that to Robert Mueller?
I think it's hilarious that they don't realize that it's their own insatiable desire to spy on everyone that is the primary driving force behind the spread of encrypted communications. That they don't realize this truth makes it all the more funny.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Benjamin Franklin.
Donald Trump is not Hussein Obama
Donald Trump isn't interested in knowing everything every American does every second of every single day
Donald Trump did not ask for those draconian measures
It was the *DEMONCRAPS* who tagged on all those draconian stuffs
The bill is sponsored by Devin Nunes, a Republican
All you can do is watch it fail.
Devin Nunes has nothing to do with Trump besides being selected as a member of Trump's transition team you fucking retard.
FTFY
Likewise - Devin Nunes has nothing to do with Democrats or even Obama.
This is yet another example of Congress doing something they have no authority to do. As a U.S. Citizen we have the right to be free of unreasonable searches. It's a RIGHT the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If Congress passed a law tomorrow saying you must be a Jew, or Muslim, or Athiest or Hindu, would the law have any validity?
Congress does not have the power to trump the Constitution of the United States of America, that would require a Constitutional Amendment. Yet, if it passes and somehow get's signed into law, they would ignore that legal responsibility, and later some agency would further violate our rights and reference this "law" as making it okay and legal for them to do so.
It's invalid from the moment of conception, as is FISA / FICA / FISC or whatever other organization name you want to use.
The other courts of our nation have the DUTY to block this with their gavel. "No Congress, you will not do these things.", "No Executive branch, you will not do these things". And if the courts claim they can't just act without it being brought before the court first, then how did the 9th Circuit, 4th Circuit, and 5th Circuit obstruct President Trump's travel ban?
It's a coup by Congress to destroy the freedoms of the United States of America, and President Trump sees this.
These events are the things that brought us to the brink of a shooting civil war, and if Clinton would have been in office, I'm sure she would just support that completely.
We didn't vote for Trump because we like him; We voted for Trump because we hate all of Congress.
There...fixed it for you.
At some point any additional surveillance is going to do more to convert people to extremism than to help prevent it.
How cute. You actually think autocratic, authoritarian Trump would veto this. Do they have unicorns in the world you inhabit?
We need MORE encryption, not less, as the FBI wants.
We'll need it _everywhere_!
Donald Trump is not Hussein Obama
Donald Trump isn't interested in knowing everything every American does every second of every single day
Donald Trump did not ask for those draconian measures
It was the *DEMONCRAPS* who tagged on all those draconian stuffs
This actually started under the Bush Administration. Just sayin'
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Donald Trump isn't interested in knowing everything every American does every second of every single day
Then I guess we can expect him to refuse to sign such a law and protect our freedoms and liberties. Which is, by the way, pretty much part of his job...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When you have many groups in a nation, and many of them hate each other, you will have massive instability. Add technology into the mix and you have a surveillance state. Before this nifty new tech, it would have simply been an informant state as in the Soviet Union: turn in a coworker and get twice as many beets in your soup this week.
Alternative Right.
Fear. It will validate his claim that he was wiretapped by Fartbongo, and conservative authoritarians lash out at any perceived violation with force. If they did it once they can do it again.
That's a plausible reason why he specifically might veto it. But more likely someone will spin it as a way to catch the brown folk and it gets signed as fast as possible.
Either one is possible with this mercurial moron depending on what Fox and Friends says about it.
WHAT! He SIGNED the bill. He's a GLOBAL TOO? Is there NO ONE that DIANE FEINSTEIN won't take to BED???
It's classic Democrat Party diversion. The ultimate form of projection. Whatever they accuse others of doing, it's to hide and divert the fact they're doing exact that.
This really two-fold. Protecting Hillary Clinton (Uranium One deal), and the FBI that protected her, and via extension, the Democrat party.
Life is not for the lazy.
"The buck stops with my predecessor."
There's a very simple solution that allows one to completely avoid this surveillance- don't talk to foreigners. It often ends poorly. For example, it is known that talking to Slovenian women leads to disaster.
Donald Trump is not Hussein Obama
Donald Trump isn't interested in knowing everything every American does every second of every single day
Donald Trump did not ask for those draconian measures
It was the *DEMONCRAPS* who tagged on all those draconian stuffs
Shesh there A/C... Ease up some... Until it actually passes the house and the senate, the Donald has nothing to do with this, except as a target...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"The buck stops with my predecessor."
At this point.... Yes, it does....
Once the bill shows up on the Donald's desk, THEN the buck stops with him, but not before.
How about it boys and girls of the democrat caucus? You going to let this out of the Senate? I believe you can easily stop it from gaining cloture by just voting as a block. What are you going to do?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Do worry - a healthy majority of Democrats will also vote Yes on the Stasi bill. Tyranny has string bipartisan support.
Do tell me then wise A/C.. IF the US Constitution applies to the whole world, who is responsible for enforcement of say "the bill of rights" in China or North Korea?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
for the Reichstag to burn down.
*"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
I don't like the alt-right buzzwords any more than you do, but Feinstein does love selling us out to the intelligence community; it's a bi-partisan thing.
Where I get your attempt at humor and would mod you up if I had points...
I do need to point out that FISA isn't really part of this little controversy you bring up. Foreign nationals on foreign soil do not require FISA warrants to have their communications intercepted and monitored... Should a US citizen be inadvertently collected on while talking to a valid foreign target, that's OK to do. You just cannot use such intercepts as evidence in a criminal investigation/prosecution w/o a warrant which requires the same probable cause as any other warrant.
I don't believe FISA warrants were required for unmasking OR collections in this case as there was no criminal investigation involved. That doesn't minimize the importance of the issue, but it does change the complexion of it some.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The reason to bring up Obama in this context is the last President's willingness — nay eagerness — to unmask US Citizens tangled in the surveillance for political reasons. The former Administration officials remain evasive about the process and procedures — they really are to blame for the actual privacy deterioration that took place.
After all, the worry is not so much that the NSA will know, who said something. It is what the rest of the government may do, when they learn about it.
If we aren't willing to block NSA from surveilling the foreigners, we better codify how to treat the cases of US citizens getting recorded incidentally — and not simply leave it up to the Executive, who has and will continue to abuse this power himself or by delegating to low-level unelected flunkies.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why would it stop him. GOP is the ones who primarily voted for it in 2008, and how many of them lost their seats?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
At the very least, it would probably preclude him from getting re-elected for a second term in 2020.
How's that? It didn't hurt Obama's reelection why would it be an issue for Trump? Because it ticks off Rand Paul or something?
I suppose democrats will demagogue this issue the best they can, but they have dirty enough hands they cannot go too far or it will certainly be made to backfire on them.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Afterwards he will be back to defend trump for his signing it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The Judicial Branch has entirely abdicated its responsibility to protect us from the government. Indeed, it seems that SCOTUS believes the reverse. In theory, Congress could pass all the snooping laws they wanted, but the judges would promptly swat them down on 4th Amendment grounds.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it " -- Learned Hand
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
"We fought for freedom, and all we got was democracy." -- Pieter-Dirk Uys
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
https://www.eff.org/wp/pattern...
Ok, let's be clear about this. This "debate" is about what we suspect is still going on and about what Congress refuses to even ask of what is being done under FISA or the Patriot Act.
Most Americans including myself don't give a damn whether or not the Federal government is spying on the communications in and out of the US if it were actually being targeted at communications with terrorists, certain foreign institutions and foreign governments as part of legitimate national security and international criminal investigations... However the understanding of people that follow how this has been evolving is that this is merely a pretext for mass surveillance of internal communications and sending it over a wire to ease dropping facilities outside the US. Which would be blatantly a violation of the US Constitution if it were ever fully revealed... which is exactly the type of program that has been long rumored and based on leaks seems to have been what has been developed by US spy agencies.
And there are absolutely NO PROTECTIONS for preventing that or for Congress to even know if that is happening as they rubber stamp levels of spending on infrastructure that could and has been rumored to be doing exactly that.
At the very least the reporting requirements could be required to say how many "incidental" collections there are of Americans communications originating or terminating inside the US... I suspect that pretty much that number would be tens of millions of Americans or hundreds of millions of Americans which is exactly why Congress is afraid to ask because they know they would need to shut down mass surveillance if it were ever revealed to them.
For all the talk about how spying on Americans communications with foreigners is wrong... maybe it is. And I think it would be great if the world got together and really worked out how to prohibit mass surveillance in the rest of the world. Ultimately we should hope for a world were civil rights are respected around the world... but at the very least, here at home we need to step back from the police state mass surveillance infrastructure that has been built ready made for mass abuse and then start worrying about how this could infringe on Americans rights abroad.
To do that we need Congress to start by asking the question about how many Americans are having their communications hoovered up by mass surveillance under FISA orders.
Since intelligence agencies are able to designate any foreigner's communications as a target for surveillance, if this foreigner has communicated with an American this means this American's communications are then also considered fair game for surveillance by the agency.
First off, note that this is what was used to catch Trump's ppl committing treason. We were listening in on Russian/Chinese/Amongst others communications and caught trump's ppl asking for a different secured way to talk to them. This occurred PRIOR to Trump being elected.
Secondly, just because you talk to a foreigner outside of our nation does NOT mean that they can then listen to all your calls. There has to be REASONABLE reason for such a thing to happen. Now, if you talk to a known/suspected terrorists/spy/etc, then yes. You WILL be listened to. That was exactly what the modification was for. But, if I call/e-mail a friend of mine in Australia or Germany or Russia or China and they are clean, it does mean that the intel world can/will listen to my future data.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
hey moron. This was done during W's time and before. Nothing extra was added during Obama's time.
Idiots like you, are the ones that are causing America to lose out. You would rather blame others than your party because you put a bunch of putrid assholes first.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The United States and its people, are who is responsible for enforcing the limits of the US government's power in China, North Korea, North America, and on the planet Mars. If the US Congress tries to pass a law that abridges the freedom of the press on the moon, or a law that infringes the right to bear arms on Alpha Centauri colony 3, we are responsible for striking down or otherwise nullifying that law.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect people's freedom. But the mechanics of the Bill of Rights is to deny power to an entity considered particularly at risk of violating peoples' freedom. To enforce the Bill of Rights is to enforce the limits of US government power. You can do that to the US government, no matter where the victim happens to be. It's just a question of whether or not we want to, is a good idea, is practical, etc.
That last part is what it's really about: you can enforce the law which limits the US government's power to infringe peoples' rights in China, but doing so doesn't have a really practical effect on how freely Chinese citizens can exercise their rights. So of course, we all have reason to be lax about enforcing the law, despite our responsibility as US citizens.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
This is a parody post, right? If supporting this bill would cause someone to not get re-elected then how do you explain all the Senators and Reps still in office after repeatedly supporting the reauthorization of this horrendous Section previously? Name a single person in Congress that was voted out specifically for supporting Section 702. I won’t hold my breath, though.
To be fair, errosion of our rights has gone on right from the gitgo. Hell, FISA was done under Nixon. And much of the groundwork on USA PATRIOT act was put into place under both reagan and Clinton.
Oddly, we need major parts of this. Where the real issue came in, is that CONgress critters continue to throw away the checks and will even remove their oversight of the work.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
My first "reality pill" regarding Obama was a FISA vote he made while a candidate. This vote violated his own campaign promises.
This rot infests both parties. Don't kid yourself. Crap like this can't persist otherwise.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Donald Trump isn't interested in knowing everything every American does every second of every single day
Then I guess we can expect him to refuse to sign such a law and protect our freedoms and liberties. Which is, by the way, pretty much part of his job...
The law isn't even necessarily the issue, except that it doesn't set up adequate 4th amendment protections and appears to be far too open ended... An open ended law isn't a problem if we (and Congress and the President) had greater transparency into how many Americans were being targeted and also how many Americans were being incidentally collected and also where those communications were originating or being received then it would go a long way towards either dispelling what we all suspect is mass abuse of a mass surveillance loophole or it would confirm those suspicions and require further reform to scale back the surveillance.
It is important to understand that Trump and every other elected president has an intentionally limited view into surveillance and if there is abuse going on then the spy agencies are going to drag their feet in responding to the president even. The idea being to prevent abuse of surveillance by politicians, but it also means that politicians can't exercise effective oversight.
At the very least he and Congress should both be demanding accountability and get real numbers overview to allow them and the public to ascertain the scope of mass surveillance. Because last time anyone checked it appeared that the Federal government was just sucking up every communication and sorting it out later which would be a massive violation of the constitution which undermines the rule of law and the safety of all Americans.
Shucks, this sounds like grounds for a good old fashioned filabuster.
Even if it fails, you can at least be on record as fighting the good fight.
You don't have to be a total accomplice and then pretend something else later.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Money is non-partisan. It doesn't care. Neither should you.
Is there NO ONE that DIANE FEINSTEIN won't take to BED???
For the right deal, the answer is obviously NO! You don't get that kind of power unless you play along. She is indeed one of the most corrupt, captured by big business, people in congress. But she brings back what her peeps want, so win she will.
> a president to try to stop a mean nasty book being published
You mean libel? Individuals have had legal cause to try to punish people for libel since pretty much forever. People like to ignore this fact because they don't like the victim. If the shoe were on the other foot, they would be out for blood.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Donald Trump can declare that Obama isn't a US citizen and undermine his Presidency.
But don't you *DARE* try that yourself.
You don't have the same rights as dear Leader.
> You actually think autocratic, authoritarian Trump
That kind of silly nonsense is straight out of the Trump troll book. It's also classic Goebbels.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If the democrats vote as a block there will be no cloture vote and no filibuster. Debate will never end and the bill will die, even if the majority tries to push it. The only way the majority would be able to do this unilaterally is to suspend the Senate rules and use the nuclear option to suspend the requirements for cloture for this bill. Where this is *possible* I don't think it's likely that the republicans would want to die on that hill.
However, I don't think this issue will be decided by a partisan vote. My guess is both parties will eventually support this bill and FISA will be renewed with very few changes.. Rand Paul will be left sputtering on the Senate floor, but it will pass with both democrat and republican support and Trump will sign it.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Obama recommended Nunes to Trump and he was fired almost immediately. As "mi" commenter proved, Obama is the real criminal here. Nunes is no doubt still working for Obama, Clinton and the rest of the deep state to pull off their coup and this effort to expand surveillance is obviously directed exactly at President Trump.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Just stop getting in our way when we're going after Trump, okay?
No no... we don't bail out every farmer that can't keep a crop alive. Only the big corporate farms that have failures get bailouts because they're too big to fail. Small farms run by actual families are actually pushed toward bankruptcy so that their land can be bought up cheaply by corporations.
Are you suggesting that there are some Americans who *want* warrantless surveillance on them?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's my understanding that this would be because the people that it previously impacted weren't people who had any say in the outcome of an election, and there are a very large number of people who will only care about an issue when something bad may or wll happen to them personally as a result of it
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So basically no politician should change and take the higher road because "the previous guy did it too!"
Never said Obama was some kind of saint. Actually, he's the same kind of asshole as the others since Eisenhower.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wonderful non-answer. You still have yet to show any reason to believe anyone involved will be significantly impacted by voting to expand Section 702.
Awwww, the snowflake is triggered.
Are you suggesting that there are some Americans who *want* warrantless surveillance on them?
No, I'm suggesting that if renewing FISA didn't hurt the last guy in the Oval Office, why would it hurt the current one? Or maybe I missed where an Obama veto was overridden to get FISA renewed?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Really? - cause prior to Obama the same investigations were going on...and the same unmasking and no legal framework was around any of it. (That's what started this law in the first place).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
When I first heard about Trump running for President I eyerolled and shook my head as hard as anyone else at the sorry state of affairs our country had fallen to. Then I watched the first Rep. primary debate where Trump noted he'd used $ to get what he wanted out of most of the other candidates on the stage with him and that it was a sorry state of affairs that he hoped to change. Then I took the time to go to his website and look over his positions and found myself thinking "Hey, that's not too bad if he actually does it." Then I watched the constant attacks from BOTH sides of our 2-party fiasco of government and thought "Mebbe we've got something here..."
Trump is the first major party Pres. candidate I've voted for in over 2 decades and so far I'm fairly pleased with the results. I tried sounding the alarm everywhere I could that if his election wasn't accompanied by a HUGE turnover of incumbent establishment types there would mostly be stalemate while the criminals fought against needed reforms and I feel fairly vindicated on that point so far. I now hope that many more voters are waking up to just how far, deep and wide the corruption of our government is, and will do their part to vote out all elected officials who have not distinguished themselves by pointing out the widespread corruption in America's political systems.
Make an ol' Jarhead proud in 2018 America...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
There's plenty of blame to be found in both parties, plenty of putrid assholes on both sides of the aisle. It's idiots who don't understand it's all a pro wrasslin' spectacle put out for the populace to witness while behind closed doors they all collude to protect their own individual interests that's causing America to lose out.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Pray stick in a comma after "spectacle" and "interests", I'm not making a living at this ya know....
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Haha so the democrats are behind it. Ok. Let's just ignore the mountain of evidence that has already been overturned.
zosxavius photography
totally agree that both MAJOR parties deserve blame. We desperately need a new 3rd party that is honest.
Up until recently, I was a registered Libertarian. Now, I am just a GDI, waiting for a decent 3rd party that is socially moderate to liberal, but strong fiscal conservatives. Basically, the party that Lincoln, Teddy and IKE had, along with FDR.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Meh, if Trump signs a bill that increases security agencies ability to surveil citizens; Trump will be lambasted with more claims of "totalitarian" and "literally Hitler". If Trump vetoes a bill for increased surveillance; he will be lambasted in the media as "doesn't care about the safety of Americans". What you can count on is the mainstream media to spin things and make up any possible evidence to make their most un-favorite politician out to be a monster. Meanwhile, most of the country wishes they would STFU on the Trump howls and actually report on something that effects the working people.
NRRPT/RCT
"Politics is the art by which politicians get money from the rich and votes from the poor in the pretext of protecting each from the other" --Oscar
Casteism
It passed the House yesterday.
The buck is definitely in congress right now. Eventually it'll enter the oval office, stand above the Resolute Desk, and vomit.
Yea, but do you think Rand Paul will be able to stop it in the Senate? Not sure he can.
Just so you know, this will be a bipartisan effort to get it though the Senate. Everybody will get the blame or praise (depending on your views) on this deal.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Ah well, better luck next time.