Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Passes Bill Renewing NSA's Internet Surveillance Program (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the here-we-go dept.

From a report: The U.S. Senate on Thursday passed a bill to renew the National Security Agency's warrantless internet surveillance program for six years and with minimal changes, overcoming objections from civil liberties advocates that it did too little to safeguard the privacy of Americans. From a report on CNET: The programs, known as Prism and Upstream, allow the NSA to collect online communications of foreigners outside the US. Prism collects these communications from internet services, and Upstream taps into the internet's infrastructure to capture information in transit. Some communications from Americans and others in the US are collected in the process. The vote Thursday renews the programs for six years. The House approved a bill renewing the programs last week. Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden first revealed the programs by leaking information about them to journalists in 2013. After the news coverage, the administration of President Barack Obama declassified much information about the programs.

96 comments

  1. Democracy theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is there anybody left at this point who actually believes that the US intelligence apparatus is governed by laws? They made it quite clear over the past couple decades that they can construct a legal fiction as needed to do whatever the fuck they want. Anything done in Congress is only a show for the public.

    The only recourse for "little people" is encryption, cryptocurrency, or anything else that has a chance of minimizing state power.

    1. Re:Democracy theater by bobbied · · Score: 2

      I actually do think they are governed by the law. The issue is open enforcement though.

      It's kind of hard to openly enforce laws within an organization that at it's heart is based on being secret. This means that it is very possible that they actually DO enforce the laws, but it isn't reported because it would disclose information best kept secret. So it's at least possible they are trying to follow the law, but just cannot talk about it.

      Your mileage may vary... But as always, conspiracy theories thrive where information is lacking, so be careful...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Democracy theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The apparatus is governed by law only insofar as it is harder (though not impossible) to use illegally gathered intelligence against you in a court of law. The common way around this is parallel construction, but that can sometimes be problematic. So if they can, they'd prefer the intelligence to be legal, so they can use it as evidence when the time comes.

    3. Re:Democracy theater by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with this is that it renews a bill that legalizes many of those previously illegal gathering methods, and since this was done under the guise of "national security", those methods are not transparent. If they're not transparent, we have no recourse but to accept the government's word that they are necessary and work.

      I mean, more people were killed by toddlers in the US in 2015 than by terrorists, yet there are no new laws coming out to "protect" Americans from toddlers. But god damn, we need to snoop all your shit because "Oh no! teh terrorists!"

      I know people here have seen this enough, but it still rings true in my opinion: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

    4. Re: Democracy theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe Ben Franklyn revised it a couple years ago. He added a couple nots in there.

    5. Re:Democracy theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I know people here have seen this enough, but it still rings true in my opinion: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

      It may "ring" true because of your bias, but in the context that Franklin was writing about at the time, it doesn't apply.

    6. Re:Democracy theater by DavidHumus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      James Clapper, head of the NSA, lied to congress while under oath and suffered no consequences whatsoever: http://www.slate.com/articles/... . That's what I call lack of enforcement.

    7. Re:Democracy theater by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yet... He's yet to see consequences... I'm hearing rumors that some really smelly stuff is about ready to hit the fan in this area so stand by...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Democracy theater by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 2

      If by "bias" you mean I don't want the government snooping my shit to "protect" me from an almost non-existent threat, then yeah, I guess I'm biased.

      I also don't think it is out of context either, The original quote was in response to the Pennsylvania General Assembly trying to tax the Penn family to pay for defense. The Penns didn't believe the GA had the authority to tax them, and instead, offered a lump sum in exchange for the GA acknowledging that they didn't have taxation authority. Franklin's quote was meant to sway the assembly to NOT accept that offer and give up their ability to tax just to get a chunk of change to pay for some defense.

      If you think of "We the People" as the General Assembly and the Federal Government as the Penns, you will see how it DOES fit in this context. The government is asking us to acknowledge that they need to snoop our private data to provide defense against a statistically non-existent threat, and in that aspect, this context is right on the money.

      The longer we allow them to extend this absolute violation of our rights, the harder it is going to be to remove it down the line.

    9. Re:Democracy theater by harrkev · · Score: 2

      I mean, more people were killed by toddlers in the US in 2015 than by terrorists

      We had thousands killed by only 19 terrorists in 2001.

      Nice, France: 86 people killed by a terrorist with a truck, and over 400 injured.

      We had a guy with terrorist leaning kill a few people with a truck only a couple of months ago. in New York.

      One difference is that toddlers generally don't set out to kill. Terrorists have the goal of killing as many people as they can. This country also has a LOT more toddlers than terrorists. Be honest, would you rather be locked in a room with five angry toddlers or five angry terrorists?

      Still, this does not excuse FISA. I have no problems with the government spying, but why is it asking too much to just get a warrant?

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    10. Re:Democracy theater by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Is there anybody left at this point who actually believes that the US intelligence apparatus is governed by laws?

      If that's the case, why would they bother renewing the statutory authorization?

      And why would we bother fighting the renewal of the statutory authorization?

      The very fact that we are all debating the passage of a law seems to be a fairly strong indicator that the US intelligence apparatus is at least partially beholden to the authorization (or lack thereof) provided by the legislature.

    11. Re:Democracy theater by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 2

      I get where you are coming from, and I acknowledge that terrorist attacks DO happen, however, the chance that you or I will get killed in one are statistically insignificant, and I don't think the government needs to spy on it's own citizens to combat it, even if it could guarantee ZERO terrorist related deaths (Which it can't).

      It's my belief that this warrantless spying has pretty close to no effect on terrorist activities, and even if it did, we cannot see that data because it's deemed sensitive to national security.

      So what are we left with? The loss of a fundamental right to privacy in exchange for the questionable effectiveness of the government's spying on it's own people in the pursuit of anti-terrorist actions.

      Mind you, I'm not even saying that this spying isn't actually effective. We simply don't know, and I'd rather not give up my right to privacy for that.

    12. Re:Democracy theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, more people were killed by toddlers in the US in 2015 than by terrorists

      President Declares War on Toddling

    13. Re:Democracy theater by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I mean, more people were killed by toddlers in the US in 2015 than by terrorists, yet there are no new laws coming out to "protect" Americans from toddlers.

      I was going to jokingly suggest, "Don't give them any ideas!", but then I realized that they're more or less already laying the groundwork for an intelligence network that would cover that "threat" as well. See: Amazon Echo; Google Home; indoor security cameras with "smart" functionality; etc..

    14. Re:Democracy theater by harrkev · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree with you. Note the final line of my original post:

      Still, this does not excuse FISA. I have no problems with the government spying, but why is it asking too much to just get a warrant?

      However, we have not had that many deaths due to either there not being much of a threat, or there is a larger threat than you realize, but the government has been effective at thwarting such attempts. I won't pretend to know the answer, but if the government CAN do something reasonable to prevent murders that still agrees with the Constitution, then it should do so.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    15. Re:Democracy theater by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 1

      I think we basically agree, we just have some differences in semantics. I don't have a problem if the government wants to access the computer or other private records of a citizen, provided they get a proper warrant. I do not actually consider that spying. It means a judge agrees with the investigating body that said access is likely to provide information related to whatever case they are investigating, and provides an audit trail.

      I also agree that the government has had at least some success in thwarting terrorist attacks, however, I am not convinced that spying on it's own citizens can be said to contribute to that success in any meaningful way, without them providing some verifiable proof.

    16. Re:Democracy theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it wasn't legal they'd be doing it anyway...we'd just (maybe) have some recourse if an innocent was caught in the crossfire.

      As it stands? Zero protections for American Citizens.

    17. Re:Democracy theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One difference is that toddlers generally don't set out to kill. Terrorists have the goal of killing as many people as they can.

      So, terrorists are relatively ineffectual.

      This country also has a LOT more toddlers than terrorists. Be honest, would you rather be locked in a room with five angry toddlers or five angry terrorists?

      The real question is, could you even find five angry terrorists? And with there being a LOT more toddlers than terrorists, wouldn't it be more like "500 angry toddlers or five angry terrorists"? Because that that point, I think it's a draw.

      Still, this does not excuse FISA. I have no problems with the government spying, but why is it asking too much to just get a warrant?

      Because terrorism is so uncommon that only through unwarranted spying does the government have any chance of spotting a terrorist. That's the obvious statement being made here: we can't catch them normally not because they're particularly smart but they're so uncommon, so let's spy on everyone and cross our fingers that the firehose of information will somehow spit out enough actually valid suspects for which we could, hypothetically get a warrant with the information collected (if such a process were legal).

      This is precisely why I'm against the government spying. Spies are not covered under the Geneva Convention for a good reason. Their actions are inherently deplorable. Even if I were to accepting spying on other countries is a necessity, that clearly does not cover spying on individual, non-state actors. Everything about accepting that course of action is to say that individuals are a threat to the State--which is either true and disturbing or false and gross hyperbole--or an acknowledgement that individual, non-state actors are a threat to politicians--which they shouldn't be, honestly, but the War on Terror degree of ass-covering is reprehensible.

      That's the whole reason for the hyperbole of terrorists vs toddlers.

    18. Re: Democracy theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do. The democratically elected Congress and president just passed a law that governs them. Sorry if you don't like it, but you don't always get what you want in democracy.

  2. NOW the buck stops with the president... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now you all can say the buck stops with the president.... I'm guessing he's going to sign it so get ready to blast away....

    All you who voted democratic though, remember that many in your party voted for this in the Senate... You might want to hold your Senator responsible if yours voted for this...In fact, PLEASE do that... ;)

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You still think you have two distinct parties in the US?

      Cute.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL.. Yea, it's more like four, but they are divided into two nearly equal groups we call Republicans and Democrats.

      There is the crazy ultra left which is about half of the democratic party and the bewildered left who are convinced by the rhetoric on the left, but don't really understand what all the hubbub is about. There is then the hard right folks, the strict constructionists and bill of rights type (think NRA and Tea Party, not the so called Neo-Nazis idiots) which constitutes a bit more than half of the right and the bewildered republicans nearer the middle who are similar to the left's moderates, wondering what those guys to their right are complaining about.

      The middle rules, but the parties are polarized by their fringes, the left more so I think. So, in that regard there are two parties, with two factions in each..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there's apologist faggots defending traitors like yourself, Bobbie.

    4. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      You still think you have two distinct parties in the US?

      Cute.

      Yes, we do; bought dog multimillionaires and one or two term politicians who do not get very far, unless of course they are very good at their jobs.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    5. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by youngone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You still think you have two distinct parties in the US?

      What I wonder about is why Americans think having two parties is normal and not to be questioned.

      The UK currently has 6 parties in it's parliament, and the tiny little country I live in, of only 4 million people, currently has 5 parties represented.
      Until recently we had as many as 8 parties but apparently the US, a country of 320,000,000 agree with each other to the extent that they only need two parties.
      Of course no-one does propaganda quite like the US.

    6. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is the crazy ultra left

      (think NRA and Tea Party, not the so called Neo-Nazis idiots)

      Oh I see, so the left is responsible for their "crazy ultra left" wing, but no no, the right has no "crazy ultra right" wing, all those white nationalists and Neo-Nazis aren't yours! That's pretty convenient, wouldn't you say?

    7. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry Deplorable, but pointing out the way democrats vote does not in any way absolve your party's actions. It is mere distraction.

    8. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Convenient? No just true.

      Remember the ultra LEFT is basically those who supported the socialist Bernie Sanders, who took a significant number of delegates from Hillary. These are the "Occupy Wall Street anarchists" and it's a big group that gives lip service to their views within the democratic party. This group is a problem. They are loud, they are motivated and they've been given tacit support by a LOT of the party which is a problem.

      Look at the top three republican runners up.. Ted Cruz is a constitutional constructionist constitutive like the next two, who together took more delegates than Trump. These guys are the Tea Party, NRA and the like.

      Nobody takes the Nazis, given they are neither politically right or left but crazy sodalists (socialists is in their name) though one could argue they belong behind Sanders more than any other candidate though they generally choose to run their own candidates. But my point is, nobody takes the few thousand of them and gives them even tacit lip service because they don't have any political power. I was taking exception to their being labeled "ultra right wing" when they are literally just crazy wackos with reprehensible views which have nothing to do with the political right of the republican party.

      But I'm betting you already know this..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You still think you have two distinct parties in the US?

      What I wonder about is why Americans think having two parties is normal and not to be questioned.

      The UK currently has 6 parties in it's parliament, and the tiny little country I live in, of only 4 million people, currently has 5 parties represented. Until recently we had as many as 8 parties but apparently the US, a country of 320,000,000 agree with each other to the extent that they only need two parties. Of course no-one does propaganda quite like the US.

      We have a totally different form of government too.. We don't have a parliament. We are a representative republic.

      Our framers pretty much set things up this way at the federal level in a way that favors two parties and we've basically been working this way for 230 years now. I'm not surprised that folks on the other side of the pond don't get how this works, most Americans don't quite understand it either. But it's set up for two parities. Now the parities HAVE changed a few times. It's not always been Democrat and Republican.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucking where? the most leftist poltician on the democrat side is an old roosevelt center left new deal democrat and he's not even actually on the party

    11. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by youngone · · Score: 1

      Our framers pretty much set things up this way at the federal level...

      Which is the problem as far as I can see. Your system is not nearly flexible enough, because you've written rules into your constitution so nothing changes. The easily corrupted 18th century system is still being used (and corrupted) in the 21 st century.
      Those of us who live in a former British Dominion are happy with the fact that we can change our voting system, which we have done to the benefit of the voters but not the politicians.

      I'm not surprised that folks on the other side of the pond don't get how this works.

      I'm not sure why you would think we don't understand the US system, it's not hard to follow, it's just that there are so many better ways of electing your government, and there are examples in use all over the world today, but you continue to put up with the gerrymandering and lobbying and riders being attached to bills and all the other graft and collusion and still feel like you might have some influence over those who rule you.
      It just proves that nobody quite does propaganda like the Americans I suppose.

    12. Re: NOW the buck stops with the president... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do. Maybe I'm crazy but the presidency seems awfully different from a year ago...

    13. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It has changed exactly once in those 200 years. It took 4 years of civil war to get it off the ground and ever since you had two increasingly identical parties.

      Not that it was any different before. Actually, it was more blatantly. The Democratic-Republicans of the pre-civil war era split into Democrats and Whigs, who ran the country 1829-1857.

      Hey, it's an improvement, at least now you have two parties that didn't start out as one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re: NOW the buck stops with the president... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The difference is literally just skin-deep.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by dwillden · · Score: 1

      And how much trouble is Your PM having forming a Majority government. Merkel is facing the same problem in Germany. We don't have that problem. We don't have to build coalition governments. Two parties (with many factions within) gives us greater stability.

      And we aren't locked to two parties, we actually have many parties, but most of them are small fringe groups not statistically large enough to deserve seats. And we don't play the coalition game, so if a party wants control they have to get a majority of seats. But if the smaller parties can win a seat it's theirs. Bernie is an Independent in the Senate.

      Additionally the dominant parties have changed, it hasn't happened in a while but it has happened, and could happen again. Whigs, Know-Nothings, National Democrats and others have held dominant positions yet they no longer exist. The key is that to be effective they have to win a majority or near enough to it to be able to block the occasional unwanted legislation. That requires a two way split. A simple plurality is not sufficient.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    16. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL... Well, I guess we know why we had to fight that war with King George back in 1776 don't we... Us and the French sent you guys packing and it's worked out pretty well since, with the USA rising to be the single dominate world power and the UK falling from that position ending up way down on the list in 200 or so years.

      I actually believe you think your system is better, which is fine with me if you think that. For the USA, our system actually works, and has for a lot longer than yours, which has undergone a couple of overhauls since the 1700's if what I remember of history is correct. If you like your current system better, great, stay in the UK and enjoy it, but I like my country's system better so I'll stay here.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    17. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by youngone · · Score: 1

      My Prime Minister formed a coalition with two other parties within a few weeks of the election we had, and it will be stable for the three years of her term, (probably).
      If the coalition does break down no-one will panic, we will have another election.
      I am not in the UK. Our Prime Minister has just announced she's pregnant, if that helps.

    18. Re:NOW the buck stops with the president... by youngone · · Score: 1

      our system actually works,

      Does it? Who does it work for? You should have a look at this study.
      Also, The Economist Intelligence Unit thinks you have some problems, so my opinion is not really what counts here.
      The point I was trying to make is that you have exactly the same system you had in 1776. Maybe it's time for a look at it.
      Also, I'm unsure why you think I'm in the UK, I never said I was. My country actually overhauled our voting system about 20 years ago, because we got sick of first-past-the-post governments being able to rule with 38% of the vote. We went with a proportional system, which has been a huge success.

  3. Show up to your primaries by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if you want these overwhelmingly unpopular things to stop happening you need to show up at your primaries. For a lot of us the choices are a moderate Republican, a "Blue Dog" Democrat or an Independent with zero chance of winning. They way to change that is to vote in your primary.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Show up to your primaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the sneaky swamp traitors of the Trump fascism : https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/section-504-house-spending-bill-changes-law-to-let-trump-administration-secretly-shift-intelligence-money/

    2. Re:Show up to your primaries by PoopJuggler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would say that if you really want things to change, rid yourself of the belief that 3rd parties have "zero chance of winning". Vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. If you keep voting along R/D party lines, you're just part of the problem because neither of those parties is really interested in making the country better.

    3. Re:Show up to your primaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They should remove R/D from ballots.

    4. Re:Show up to your primaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you *really* want things to change, then lobby.

      Money talks, bullshit walks.

    5. Re:Show up to your primaries by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Or note that vast majority of the Democratic Senators didn't vote for this, and maybe realize that the "Blue Dog" Democrats you are blaming are actually mostly agreeing with the policies you want?

    6. Re:Show up to your primaries by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      Getting rid of this horrid first past the post voting system is the only real way to fix things. Our representatives have no reason to represent us if our only choices are between bad, worse, and crazy.

    7. Re:Show up to your primaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They way to change that is to vote in your primary.

      I'm registered as an independent, and that means that I'm not allowed to vote in my state's primaries. Apparently, there are a total of 13 states with "closed primaries" where independents are excluded from voting. See

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_elections_in_the_United_States#Closed_primary

    8. Re:Show up to your primaries by frankenheinz · · Score: 1

      OUST FEINSTEIN

      --
      The law is not an ass. No really.
    9. Re:Show up to your primaries by hierofalcon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Register in the major party that is most likely to win the majority of the races in your state. Vote for the best candidate in that party. Then in the general election - vote for whoever you feel is best.

      This does two things. First, it means that the primary ballot will not be as likely to be overwhelmingly for one candidate because many are voting in the major party. Second, once you have done the best you can to try to get the majority party to pick a candidate you can live with via the primary, voting your conscience in the general will make you feel better. It probably won't matter for most offices anyway, but that's life. There are usually not enough candidates competing for election in a third-party to make the primary matter.

      There are some states where the outcome is close enough that this isn't safe, but most states are pretty solidly red or blue. In these cases, there is nothing wrong with voting with the major party in the primary and then for the best candidate that survives in the general.

      What really needs to change is the first past the post. Have the primary election countrywide on the same day - just like the general election. That, by itself, would do more to make sure that the best of the lot cleared the primary and not just the candidate with the most money of their own or their friends. It would also help to eliminate the influence of a few states that get to vote earlier than others.

    10. Re:Show up to your primaries by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Like:

      Catherine Cortez-Masto

      Tammy Duckworth

      Maggie Hassan

      Heidi Eitkamp

      Amy Klobuchar

      Claire McCaskill

      Jeanne Shaheen

    11. Re:Show up to your primaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true, but I've been doing this for the last 30 years, and yet here we are. The better solution is simply to avoid the poisoned well. The only secrets NSA gets from watching my electronic communications are the ones I put there. The real secrets are offline. It gets old meeting in the park to chat, but it's effective.

    12. Re:Show up to your primaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3rd parties still have no chance with FPTP, especially if all they have is useful idiots like Jill stein and the greens

    13. Re:Show up to your primaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a self-proclaimed libertarian I register democrat specifically so I can vote in their primaries. I'd of taken Bernie over Hillary and that's how I voted in the primaries. Come general election I voted Gary Johnson. Rather vote for "what's a leppo?" then two blatant liars.

      Sadly, the majority of the country still thinks D or R is going to change things.

      Some other poster had a good idea, ban the D, R, L, etc off the ballot. Then voters will at least have to know a candidates name as opposed to just checking the party letter.

      Oh well, we know we are screwed anyway.

    14. Re:Show up to your primaries by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      The battle is always couched as a battle for the Presidency, and I will grant you this is an important role. But a President is largely constrained to act on bills Congress passes. Elect the best people from any party for every office there is. Not everyone will think alike. Some will truly like R or D and sometimes the R or D is truly the best

      But encourage people to vote for the best man or woman running in every race. Get stand out candidates to actually run for a third party slot for local or state races. Make people think about the choice. Remind them of their choices the previous election who didn't get a chance - either due to the primary process being stacked against them or because they were third party. Not many will break away from the R or D in any given year, but if people can even start thinking that way it is a very small step. Maybe my generation won't see a difference, and maybe your generation won't either, but eventually someone will.

      I too voted for Johnson this year. I did so knowing that my state would support R without a doubt and that my vote would mean nothing, but at least I'm not ashamed of the fact. That doesn't mean I may not vote R next time - or D. It depends on who is the best person for the job in question.

    15. Re:Show up to your primaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should stop holding primaries. Those aren't government elections, they are private political party elections which are not part of the United States government. What other private groups get so many free services, kickbacks, and law exclusions from the national and local governments?

    16. Re:Show up to your primaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you are not part of the parties. You want to help a party choose the best candidate you should belong to the party.

      As an independent not willing to declare an allegiance you get to vote in the general election, choosing among the candidates put forth by all the parties.

      Closed primaries should be mandatory nationwide. They protect the minority party from interference by the dominant party. (Our candidates will get plenty of votes, let's go to the other party and vote for their worst candidate to help our party win in the general election).

      In fact the evidence is rather strong that this is what put Trump in the Whitehouse. In the early GOP Primaries Most of which were open, Trump won the Open primaries while getting trounced in the closed primary states. In GA his margin of victory matched the difference in number of voters who voted in the 2012 Democratic primaries and the 2016 Dem primaries. In other words a few million voters who had lined up to support re-election of Obama in 2012, crossed lines and voted for Trump. This impacted the GOP race because most of the early primaries are open and those early wins are critical. A candidate that doesn't win early usually drops out quickly. So Open primary cross party votes for the Worst of the GOP candidates gave him that crucial early momentum that got him the nomination. And once he had the Nomination then it was him versus the even less desirable Hillary.

      So do you really want open primaries or should the parties be allowed to choose their best candidates without having cross party interference. (or at least reduced as it's rather simple to change party affiliation before the primaries and again before the General elections.

    17. Re:Show up to your primaries by Agripa · · Score: 1

      if you want these overwhelmingly unpopular things to stop happening you need to show up at your primaries. For a lot of us the choices are a moderate Republican, a "Blue Dog" Democrat or an Independent with zero chance of winning. They way to change that is to vote in your primary.

      Do you mean so we can play the same plurality game from a group of preselected winners? No thanks. Even if there was a secondary before the primary, it is turtles all the way down.

  4. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not unexpected, but disappointing.

  5. Elections dont matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary and Donald both would sign this in a New York minute. I hope Iâ(TM)m wrong but as bad as this is barring a constitutional convention itâ(TM)s not going anywhere.

  6. I doubt that the NSA gave senators bribes ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    sorry, I mean 'research contributions'. So: what do the senators get out of this ? Intelligence maybe; who on ?

    1. Re: I doubt that the NSA gave senators bribes ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dirt on their scumbagery stays private. Its all blackmail

    2. Re:I doubt that the NSA gave senators bribes ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Bribes? Probably not. Blackmail? Well...

      "Senator, do you remember where you were last Saturday? Well, we do..."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:I doubt that the NSA gave senators bribes ... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Jobs for their voters in their state. Security work, landscaping, new power connection, new cooling water connections. Thats nice local jobs for voters in the growing domestic collect it all sector. Room 641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... upgrades all over the USA.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:I doubt that the NSA gave senators bribes ... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      So: what do the senators get out of this ?

      Some of them actually believe it. For others, they get the appearance of being "tough on terrorists", which helps them in the next election.

  7. Giving reason to Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And then they wonder why the rest of us want to encrypt our comunications.. Idiots.

    1. Re:Giving reason to Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encryption becomes useless with IME on your machine. Keys either public or private would be scraped by IME.

  8. Re:Trump Wins Again by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's being renewed, it existed throughout the entire 8 year Obama presidency, too.

  9. Re:Trump Wins Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not this part : https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/section-504-house-spending-bill-changes-law-to-let-trump-administration-secretly-shift-intelligence-money/

  10. 3rd parties have zero chance by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    because our system of government doesn't lend itself to them. The electoral college and Senate make it easy for the oligarchy to split the electorate down the middle and take control of the government. We'd need to switch to a parliamentary system to make their parties viable. That's tough to do because it means changing our constitution; and doing that while the oligarchy is in charge is a recipe for disaster. One we just adverted when the Dems took a few seats in the state legislature recently (making it basically impossible for a constitutional convention to be called).

    No, for now the best bet is to take over one of the major parties from within. I'm for the Dems. They support Net Neutrality, Healthcare for all (though there's a lot of infighting on how to do it) and the Rs are a little too forgiving of racism for my blood. Though their stance on immigration (specifically the H1-B visa program) leaves me cold, there's some pressure from the Bernie wing (who's a D for all intents and purposes) to reign that in.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  11. Fuck you to all the Russian trolls on this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of replying to your deliberately divisive rhetoric individually I'll just give a blanket: fuck you.

  12. 2 year term limits max - no re-election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Term limits for all offices should only be 2 years each, without the ability to be re-elected.

    That's the only way to stop the treason that is currently bought and paid for.

    1. Re: 2 year term limits max - no re-election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... No.

    2. Re:2 year term limits max - no re-election by dszd0g · · Score: 1

      Actually shorter terms I believe leads to more corruption. The shorter the terms, the more time spent campaigning vs. working.

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  13. No, he's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is a 2 party system: The politicians and the rest of us.

  14. All Aboard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Amazon are all onboard for the new program! All their "smart" household devices are ready to send data!

  15. Of course they did by turp182 · · Score: 1

    They are being watched as well.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  16. We do, actually. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of my state, the Republican whose district I'm a part of voted against FISA. Another Republicunt in the state voted for it. And let's not get into the Democraps.

    We certainly have two parties - those legislators that stand with the people, and those who do not. Traditional party names are what is meaningless.

  17. In response by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    The folks who still have access to the Snowden Files should release a few more in case the people have forgot why this legislation is such a bad idea.

  18. Two sides by hattable · · Score: 0

    "allow the NSA to collect online communications of foreigners outside the US. Prism collects these communications from internet services, and Upstream taps into the internet'"

    And who is shocked by this? Who thinks this is a bad idea? Many do, I'm less on the fence than many others.

    They are executing the mission they have been charged with by the government since its formation, and how many times can we point to and say this was enabled by illegal [something]? Malice, or intent to defraud, extort or harm someone has usually been a condition of charging someone with a crime. Let's fight for our rights! But make sure we know what we are fighting for, spinning wheel wastes energy on both sides.


    This post is my opinion only

    --
    OMG facts!
    1. Re:Two sides by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Color of law cover for domestic collect it all.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  19. about that 'vast majority" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Vast majority" against? HAHA.

    Democrats voting Yea:

    Carper (D-DE)
    Casey (D-PA)
    Cortez Masto (D-NV)
    Donnelly (D-IN)
    Duckworth (D-IL)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Hassan (D-NH)
    Heitkamp (D-ND)
    Jones (D-AL)
    Kaine (D-VA
    Klobuchar (D-MN)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Peters (D-MI)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Warner (D-VA)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)

    That's 21 out of 47 total Democrats in the Senate voting Yea. So 26 is hardly a "vast" majority of the Dems voiting against.

    1. Re:about that 'vast majority" by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Valid point: Majority, not vast majority.

    2. Re:about that 'vast majority" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, 26:21 against isn't a vast majority. But it's still a lot better than 44:8 in favour on the (R) side.

  20. Re:Trump Wins Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    big whoop. If this resolution makes it out of committee to be voted on, then I'll worry.

  21. How anyone can doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The terrorist won is beyond me.

  22. Re:Trump Wins Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing how the Democrats who tell us that Trump is Putin's puppet are incredibly willing to expand his spying powers.

  23. NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creeping on you since 2001!

  24. Are you mentally ill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama presides over NSA surveillence.

    Obama is unmasked by Snowden.

    Obama prosecutes Manning and Assange.

    And somehow you think Democrats have no role in this?

  25. Put this in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to add some perspective to this, Congress saw fit to spy on everyone, but can't agree to fund the U.S. government past 4 weeks... Pretty sad.

  26. Re:Fuck you to all the Russian trolls on this thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's it! I'm going to petition my government to declare war against US for breaking my privacy rights! Wait, my government doesn't read petitions, lacks self-awareness to consider it a problem (or maybe that's a Slavic thing), and the country is in chaos due to the military dictator for life in charge. It can't be done.

  27. The case for staggered primaries by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    'Have the primary election countrywide on the same day - just like the general election.'

    Bad mistake. The reality is lesser candidates who can only raise a small amount of money will become inconceivable in such a scenario. By contrast with the staggered primary, a candidate that does well in the early rounds can build momentum in a way that leads to their being the candidate, when they didn't have the slightest chance at the start.

    Note also that staggered primaries force ALL candidates to engage with real people in at least a few states; if it was a national poll, there would be no need for them to get out and do retail politics at least once. Now admitted the present situation where this privilege is granted to Iowa and New Hampshire is probably not ideal, but it's better than the alternative.

    1. Re:The case for staggered primaries by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      There is good and bad doing it both ways. With staggered primaries many candidates are forced to drop out due to funding eliminating them from consideration by states that vote later. That is just as bad. If you disagree, just look at the last election.

      I'd also say that the behind the scene's manipulations in non vote tallied primaries should be done away with. Let all the people vote in the primary - not just the party members who can make it to a party meeting on a particular day to pick the slate of candidates for the primary. Way too much corruption and control by the party bosses - at least in my state.

      The primary doesn't have to be as early if everyone votes at once. The advantage will still be to the candidates who put the most work into meeting with the people and getting their ideas out there. The same effort will still need to be expended by each candidate to get their names on the ballot in every state. But at least many states - some large states - won't be disenfranchised from picking the candidate they thought was best because that candidate was forced out of the race due to lack of funding or poor results in a few early states.

      I don't particularly care if a presidential candidate gets out and shakes my hand - or that of anyone else in my state. I'd much rather they put their time into getting their message out on the internet where every candidate is equal. Certain candidates were excellent in the last election in getting out and pressing the flesh. History will be the judge of whether the process failed or not.

  28. Re:Trump Wins Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's being renewed, it existed throughout the entire 8 year Obama presidency, too.

    Funny, normally Trump undoes everything Obama did.

  29. Hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This man assisted me in hacking my CHEATING HUSBAND Facebook account and he is a very good hacker for services like :whats-app, call logs, test messages etc. He delivers in 2hrs or less you can email him on ENRIQUEHACKDEMON11@GMAIL.COM or WhatsApp: +1(628)203-7005 ,he might ask for who referred you to him say Maddie

  30. EAE by Agripa · · Score: 1

    Encrypt Absolutely Everything