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

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.

Comments

Democracy theater

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Democracy theater

[bobbied]

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...

Re:Democracy theater

[ScienceofSpock]

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

Re:Democracy theater

[DavidHumus]

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.

Re:Democracy theater

[ScienceofSpock]

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.

Re:Democracy theater

[harrkev]

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?

Re:Democracy theater

[ScienceofSpock]

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.

NOW the buck stops with the president...

[bobbied]

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... ;)

Re:NOW the buck stops with the president...

[Opportunist]

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

Cute.

Re:NOW the buck stops with the president...

[youngone]

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.

Show up to your primaries

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Show up to your primaries

[PoopJuggler]

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.

Re:Show up to your primaries

[Anonymous Coward]

They should remove R/D from ballots.

Re:Show up to your primaries

[hierofalcon]

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.

Giving reason to Encrypt

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Trump Wins Again

[jfdavis668]

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

3rd parties have zero chance

[rsilvergun]

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.