8 ms·

55 House Democrats, including Pelosi, voted against the USA Rights Act amendment that would have substantially limited the surveillance against US citizens. 65

55 House Democrats, including Pelosi, voted against the USA Rights Act amendment that would have substantially limited the surveillance against US citizens. 65 House Democrats ultimately voted in favor of this bill and giving the Trump admin more unchecked surveillance powers. https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml

rocmcd 9y ago
Does anyone know if there is a place where representatives put their reasoning behind votes?
- Something1234 9y ago
  If there isn't one yet, there needs to be one. Our government needs to be made more transparent, and we deserve to know their train of thought for these incredible and large decisions.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    If you somehow convince them to require it of themselves you'll just get page after page of disingenuous paffle.
    - TallGuyShort 9y ago
      And it'll be done by some intern. Same as when you write or call them now.
- bmelton 9y ago
  Not my representative, bu Justin Amash, an R from Michigan's 3rd District, posts the rationale for why he voted how he voted on most bills on Facebook. To my knowledge, he's the only one that does it with any degree of regularity.
  - matthewmcg 9y ago
    I don't agree with many of his other positions, but Congressman Amash deserves credit for consistently standing up to his party and fighting government surveillance.
- davidw 9y ago
  You can contact them and ask. They're working for you, after all.
  - ktsmith 9y ago
    For the most part you'll just get a form letter with little to no information in it. It will also almost certainly be written by a staff member that has little to no experience with the policy matter in question.
    - davidw 9y ago
      Responding to a bunch of people individually doesn't scale, so that's not terribly unreasonable. Still, if you call, it does a couple of things 1) you do find out what they think about the issue 2) they know that their constituents care about the issue.
JohnStudio 9y ago
What was the post-Obama efforts to dismantle the wire tapping program that Bush had put in place w/ the perceived powers of the executive? That's a serious question, since I don't really know history behind it.
- iaw 9y ago
  There was no effort to dismantle the wiretapping... * Bush implemented surveillance of citizens in response to 9/11 * Obama continued to support this program after it was revealed by Edward Snowden * Now there's Trump
  - cmiles74 9y ago
    Personally, this was one of my biggest disappointments from the Obama administration. Before he became president, he was critical of the Patriot Act and seemed legitimately concerned[0]. After election he signed a four year renewal[1]. [0]: http://obamaspeeches.com/041-The-PATRIOT-Act-Obama-Speech.htm http://obamaspeeches.com/041-The-PATRIOT-Act-Obama-Speech.ht... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveilla...
    - vuln 9y ago
      This has to be my number one gripe with Obama. I was so for him repealing the Bush Era Surveillance. I wanted more checks and balances. I wanted the secret courts to be dismantled. Unfortunately Obama almost quadrupled funding to these agencies[1]. Throughout his administration he allowed the Alphabet boys to try and steal more american's data without warrants (See FBI v Apple and the FBI attempting to get access to your browser history with out warrants)[2][3]. Obama even EXPANDED surevellience on his way out of office[4]. Obama also said he was pro whistle blowers we all know what happened to Chelsea. Let's not even get into the fact that he dropped a bomb on average every 20 minutes of his presidency. The is just 2016[5] [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/surveillance-in-the-obama-era-1496683972 https://www.wsj.com/articles/surveillance-in-the-obama-era-1... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-wants-access-to-internet-browser-history-without-a-warrant-in-terrorism-and-spy-cases/2016/06/06/2d257328-2c0d-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html?utm_term=.78c3ceeb50ed https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-w... [4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveillance-powers-his-way-out https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveill... [5] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-president-barack-obama-bomb-map-drone-wars-strikes-20000-pakistan-middle-east-afghanistan-a7534851.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-presiden...
bzbarsky 9y ago
From what I've seen, Pelosi pretty consistently votes for expansion of state surveillance and other aspects of the security apparatus. So this vote is entirely in line with her general voting record...
- asimpletune 9y ago
  Pelosi and Feinstein are the worst when it comes to privacy law.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    Which is something I find interesting since they are both Democrats from San Francisco - Pelosi(represents S.F, the 12th district) and Feinstein represents California but is born and bread S.F. and served as its' Mayor for a bit.
    - ataturk 9y ago
      But they are all big-government statists and they all walk the same way when it comes to invading citizens' privacy. It was a bad law from the start, it will always be a bad law, and it tells you everything you need to know about our current government that they keep renewing this bad law. And no, it's not a question of "if you have nothing to hide.." it's simple, basic reality--you are not free in any sense of the word if you have East-German type surveillance up your ass 24/7.
    - stevenwoo 9y ago
      Personally I think both of them have been in office too long, what was progressive when they first took office is probably different from what it is now and the last town halls for both Feinstein and Pelosi were striking for how ossified and tone deaf they sounded.
      - bogomipz 9y ago
        I completely agree. They are career politicians and both completely out touch. There are 79 members of the US Congress who have been there for at least 20 years[1] And if they weren't enough, the age average of them is fairly close to retirement age: "The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 114th Congress was 57.0 years; of Senators, 61.0 years."[2] [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-18/79-members-congress-have-been-office-least-20-years https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-18/79-members-congres... [2] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf
hrasyid 9y ago
Is the clerk.house.gov link the right one? It has "BILL TITLE: Rapid DNA Act of 2017" on its header, doesn't sound like a surveillance law
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Is the clerk.house.gov link the right one? It has "BILL TITLE: Rapid DNA Act of 2017" on its header, doesn't sound like a surveillance law? First, it sounds like a genetic information surveillance law to me, but lots of laws have things other than their main focus (including reauths of other laws) tucked in. Second, lots of laws have misleading titles; do “USA PATRIOT Act” and “USA FREEDOM Act” sound (other than knowing the actual content put under those titles included) like surveillance laws?
  - hrasyid 9y ago
    So, how do we know that it's the right one? Also, it's quite conceivable that a government considers surveilance "patriotic" or necessary to defend "freedom", but I don't feel the same about "Rapid DNA".
- bgentry 9y ago
  I think so, it appears to be the primary bill that was discussed this morning: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20180111&today=20180111 http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20180111&... The Amash amendment was also to this bill. Here is a pamphlet comparing S. 139 with the Amash/USA Rights Act Amendment: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/ChartComparingS139andUSARIGHTS11018.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/ChartCompa... That same document refers to S. 139 as the FISA Reauthorization Amendments Act. More clarification from journalists who closely follow this topic: https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/951541344274649089 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/951541344274649089
  - loteck 9y ago
    As we are discussing elsewhere, this is the vote on the Amash amendment, which is what people here are talking about. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml
CWuestefeld 9y ago
Every time this comes up, I'm again surprised how many people expect that Democrats will somehow have better policy for privacy. Folks, it ain't so. The Democrats won't protect us in this regard any more than the Republicans will.
- kmonsen 9y ago
  Sure democrats are not perfect on this, but they are still as good/slightly better than republicans which are a shitshow on more or less every issue. One of the reasons democrats feel able to be horrible here is that there is just no alternative.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    Not sure why this is downvoted.
- ep103 9y ago
  The parent comment literally shows that Democrats protect us for privacy more than Republicans do. 125 Democrats voted to add privacy protections, 55 did not. By Contrast 58 Republicans voted to add privacy protections, 178 did not. By definition, that means Democrats were better about privacy protections. Stop peddling this both-parties-are-the-same nonsense. Its amazing this can even be said with a straight face during the Trump administration.
  - vuln 9y ago
    The last President was a Democrat and he sure didn't care about American's Privacy even though he used it on his campaign trail to get elected... Please don't act like _only_ Republicans do this... From my comment down thread >Unfortunately Obama almost quadrupled funding to these agencies[1]. Throughout his administration he allowed the Alphabet boys to try and steal more american's data without warrants (See FBI v Apple and the FBI attempting to get access to your browser history with out warrants)[2][3]. Obama even EXPANDED surveillance on his way out of office[4]. Obama also said he was pro whistle blowers we all know what happened to Chelsea. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/surveillance-in-the-obama-era-1496683972 https://www.wsj.com/articles/surveillance-in-the-obama-era-1... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-wants-access-to-internet-browser-history-without-a-warrant-in-terrorism-and-spy-cases/2016/06/06/2d257328-2c0d-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html?utm_term=.48131f786a8d https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-w... [4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveillance-powers-his-way-out https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveill...
loteck 9y ago
Your Twitter link shows my representative voted No and your house.gov link says my representative voted Yes. People may want to double check your work here. Edit: your house.gov link is in fact wrong. This is the correct link. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml
- bgentry 9y ago
  Edit: your house.gov link is in fact wrong. This is the correct link. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml My Twitter link shows Dems who voted against the USA Rights amendment, and my house.gov link is for the bill itself. It is possible (and in fact likely) that a rep who voted no on the amendment would support the bill without it. Your house.gov link is for the amendment, so it should reflect the same votes as the image in the tweet.
  - loteck 9y ago
    The twitter link discusses no votes on the Amash amendment. Your house link is not the vote on the Amash amendment.
    - bgentry 9y ago
      Maybe I worded my reply poorly, because that is exactly what I was trying to say. Let's try this again. Dems who voted against the Amash/USA Rights amendment: https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 All votes for the Amash/USA Rights amendment: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml All votes on S. 139, aka the main bill: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml

rocmcd 9y ago

Does anyone know if there is a place where representatives put their reasoning behind votes?

Something1234 9y ago
If there isn't one yet, there needs to be one. Our government needs to be made more transparent, and we deserve to know their train of thought for these incredible and large decisions.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  If you somehow convince them to require it of themselves you'll just get page after page of disingenuous paffle.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    And it'll be done by some intern. Same as when you write or call them now.
bmelton 9y ago
Not my representative, bu Justin Amash, an R from Michigan's 3rd District, posts the rationale for why he voted how he voted on most bills on Facebook. To my knowledge, he's the only one that does it with any degree of regularity.
- matthewmcg 9y ago
  I don't agree with many of his other positions, but Congressman Amash deserves credit for consistently standing up to his party and fighting government surveillance.
davidw 9y ago
You can contact them and ask. They're working for you, after all.
- ktsmith 9y ago
  For the most part you'll just get a form letter with little to no information in it. It will also almost certainly be written by a staff member that has little to no experience with the policy matter in question.
  - davidw 9y ago
    Responding to a bunch of people individually doesn't scale, so that's not terribly unreasonable. Still, if you call, it does a couple of things 1) you do find out what they think about the issue 2) they know that their constituents care about the issue.

JohnStudio 9y ago

What was the post-Obama efforts to dismantle the wire tapping program that Bush had put in place w/ the perceived powers of the executive? That's a serious question, since I don't really know history behind it.

iaw 9y ago
There was no effort to dismantle the wiretapping... * Bush implemented surveillance of citizens in response to 9/11 * Obama continued to support this program after it was revealed by Edward Snowden * Now there's Trump
- cmiles74 9y ago
  Personally, this was one of my biggest disappointments from the Obama administration. Before he became president, he was critical of the Patriot Act and seemed legitimately concerned[0]. After election he signed a four year renewal[1]. [0]: http://obamaspeeches.com/041-The-PATRIOT-Act-Obama-Speech.htm http://obamaspeeches.com/041-The-PATRIOT-Act-Obama-Speech.ht... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveilla...
  - vuln 9y ago
    This has to be my number one gripe with Obama. I was so for him repealing the Bush Era Surveillance. I wanted more checks and balances. I wanted the secret courts to be dismantled. Unfortunately Obama almost quadrupled funding to these agencies[1]. Throughout his administration he allowed the Alphabet boys to try and steal more american's data without warrants (See FBI v Apple and the FBI attempting to get access to your browser history with out warrants)[2][3]. Obama even EXPANDED surevellience on his way out of office[4]. Obama also said he was pro whistle blowers we all know what happened to Chelsea. Let's not even get into the fact that he dropped a bomb on average every 20 minutes of his presidency. The is just 2016[5] [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/surveillance-in-the-obama-era-1496683972 https://www.wsj.com/articles/surveillance-in-the-obama-era-1... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-wants-access-to-internet-browser-history-without-a-warrant-in-terrorism-and-spy-cases/2016/06/06/2d257328-2c0d-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html?utm_term=.78c3ceeb50ed https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-w... [4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveillance-powers-his-way-out https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveill... [5] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-president-barack-obama-bomb-map-drone-wars-strikes-20000-pakistan-middle-east-afghanistan-a7534851.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-presiden...

bzbarsky 9y ago

From what I've seen, Pelosi pretty consistently votes for expansion of state surveillance and other aspects of the security apparatus. So this vote is entirely in line with her general voting record...

asimpletune 9y ago
Pelosi and Feinstein are the worst when it comes to privacy law.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  Which is something I find interesting since they are both Democrats from San Francisco - Pelosi(represents S.F, the 12th district) and Feinstein represents California but is born and bread S.F. and served as its' Mayor for a bit.
  - ataturk 9y ago
    But they are all big-government statists and they all walk the same way when it comes to invading citizens' privacy. It was a bad law from the start, it will always be a bad law, and it tells you everything you need to know about our current government that they keep renewing this bad law. And no, it's not a question of "if you have nothing to hide.." it's simple, basic reality--you are not free in any sense of the word if you have East-German type surveillance up your ass 24/7.
  - stevenwoo 9y ago
    Personally I think both of them have been in office too long, what was progressive when they first took office is probably different from what it is now and the last town halls for both Feinstein and Pelosi were striking for how ossified and tone deaf they sounded.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      I completely agree. They are career politicians and both completely out touch. There are 79 members of the US Congress who have been there for at least 20 years[1] And if they weren't enough, the age average of them is fairly close to retirement age: "The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 114th Congress was 57.0 years; of Senators, 61.0 years."[2] [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-18/79-members-congress-have-been-office-least-20-years https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-18/79-members-congres... [2] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf

hrasyid 9y ago

Is the clerk.house.gov link the right one? It has "BILL TITLE: Rapid DNA Act of 2017" on its header, doesn't sound like a surveillance law

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Is the clerk.house.gov link the right one? It has "BILL TITLE: Rapid DNA Act of 2017" on its header, doesn't sound like a surveillance law? First, it sounds like a genetic information surveillance law to me, but lots of laws have things other than their main focus (including reauths of other laws) tucked in. Second, lots of laws have misleading titles; do “USA PATRIOT Act” and “USA FREEDOM Act” sound (other than knowing the actual content put under those titles included) like surveillance laws?
- hrasyid 9y ago
  So, how do we know that it's the right one? Also, it's quite conceivable that a government considers surveilance "patriotic" or necessary to defend "freedom", but I don't feel the same about "Rapid DNA".
bgentry 9y ago
I think so, it appears to be the primary bill that was discussed this morning: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20180111&today=20180111 http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20180111&... The Amash amendment was also to this bill. Here is a pamphlet comparing S. 139 with the Amash/USA Rights Act Amendment: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/ChartComparingS139andUSARIGHTS11018.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/ChartCompa... That same document refers to S. 139 as the FISA Reauthorization Amendments Act. More clarification from journalists who closely follow this topic: https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/951541344274649089 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/951541344274649089
- loteck 9y ago
  As we are discussing elsewhere, this is the vote on the Amash amendment, which is what people here are talking about. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml

CWuestefeld 9y ago

Every time this comes up, I'm again surprised how many people expect that Democrats will somehow have better policy for privacy. Folks, it ain't so. The Democrats won't protect us in this regard any more than the Republicans will.

kmonsen 9y ago
Sure democrats are not perfect on this, but they are still as good/slightly better than republicans which are a shitshow on more or less every issue. One of the reasons democrats feel able to be horrible here is that there is just no alternative.
- noobermin 9y ago
  Not sure why this is downvoted.
ep103 9y ago
The parent comment literally shows that Democrats protect us for privacy more than Republicans do. 125 Democrats voted to add privacy protections, 55 did not. By Contrast 58 Republicans voted to add privacy protections, 178 did not. By definition, that means Democrats were better about privacy protections. Stop peddling this both-parties-are-the-same nonsense. Its amazing this can even be said with a straight face during the Trump administration.
- vuln 9y ago
  The last President was a Democrat and he sure didn't care about American's Privacy even though he used it on his campaign trail to get elected... Please don't act like _only_ Republicans do this... From my comment down thread >Unfortunately Obama almost quadrupled funding to these agencies[1]. Throughout his administration he allowed the Alphabet boys to try and steal more american's data without warrants (See FBI v Apple and the FBI attempting to get access to your browser history with out warrants)[2][3]. Obama even EXPANDED surveillance on his way out of office[4]. Obama also said he was pro whistle blowers we all know what happened to Chelsea. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/surveillance-in-the-obama-era-1496683972 https://www.wsj.com/articles/surveillance-in-the-obama-era-1... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-wants-access-to-internet-browser-history-without-a-warrant-in-terrorism-and-spy-cases/2016/06/06/2d257328-2c0d-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html?utm_term=.48131f786a8d https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-w... [4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveillance-powers-his-way-out https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveill...

loteck 9y ago

Your Twitter link shows my representative voted No and your house.gov link says my representative voted Yes. People may want to double check your work here. Edit: your house.gov link is in fact wrong. This is the correct link. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml

bgentry 9y ago
Edit: your house.gov link is in fact wrong. This is the correct link. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml My Twitter link shows Dems who voted against the USA Rights amendment, and my house.gov link is for the bill itself. It is possible (and in fact likely) that a rep who voted no on the amendment would support the bill without it. Your house.gov link is for the amendment, so it should reflect the same votes as the image in the tweet.
- loteck 9y ago
  The twitter link discusses no votes on the Amash amendment. Your house link is not the vote on the Amash amendment.
  - bgentry 9y ago
    Maybe I worded my reply poorly, because that is exactly what I was trying to say. Let's try this again. Dems who voted against the Amash/USA Rights amendment: https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 All votes for the Amash/USA Rights amendment: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml All votes on S. 139, aka the main bill: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml