7 ms·
Bills Introduced by Congress Fail to Fix Unconstitutional NSA Spying
- motters 13y agoFixing American laws is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't make me as a non-American feel any more confident about using US-based internet services.
- eli 13y agoAre there any examples of countries that have the means to spy on other countries but choose not to?
- EthanHeilman 13y agoThe US between the years 1929-~1935. The closing of the American Black Chamber to the opening and secret executive permission for the military to break the law and steal communications for "training" purposes.
- mpyne 13y agoWhich led to the famous Henry Stimson quote that "gentlemen do not read each others' mail". Luckily for the U.S., they stopped acting like gentlemen in time for the Battle of Midway.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoStimson got over it pretty quickly. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/06/10/building-americas-secret-surveillance-state/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/06/10/building-am...
- EthanHeilman 13y agoIt's the difference between a peace footing and a war footing. The US broke off the lever that switches between the two.
- Daniel_Newby 13y agoNuclear physicists broke off the lever. The intelligence community has been holding things together with duct tape ever since, successfully so far. We should seriously ask whether the NSA is broken before we try fixing it. If a mushroom cloud over Indianapolis is a 10 on the civil liberty infringement scale, many people would rank domestic surveillance as a 0.0001.
- Vivtek 13y agoRight, because nuclear terrorism is what the NSA is looking for. Nice rhetorical posturing there, big guy.
- mpyne 13y agoWell, the threat of a dirty bomb or actual nuclear payload being smuggled into a U.S. city by a terrorist group really is something the NSA is watching for. It's just not the only thing they're watching for.
- Vivtek 13y agoI wish they'd been watching for fraud on the part of the biggest banks, which has done America a lot more damage than a smuggled bomb. Putting it in Indianapolis is rank pandering to the Tea Party, though. Back in 2003, my dad (also in (rural) Indiana) professed to be in fear of Saddam Hussein. I told him at the time that even if Saddam Hussein actually had any way to affect him, he'd never heard of Indiana. And yet it's the heartland running on sheer terror to demand safety instead of their liberty.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
- Jach 13y agoFinland?[1] (I have no idea.) [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uimh2EBB1yQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uimh2EBB1yQ
- rayiner 13y agoIt shouldn't. Our laws aren't designed to protect you.
- sanderjd 13y agoThis is true, but not the full story. Your parent specifically called out his lack confidence in U.S. companies, not in the U.S. government. While I agree that our laws shouldn't necessarily be designed to protect non-citizens, their design preferably shouldn't result in our companies losing access to foreign markets.
- yuhong 13y agoI think a Constitutional Amendment should be considered too.
- lukifer 13y agoWould a bill to explicitly define the 4th to include data storage have sufficient force of law? Or would that violate separation of powers and get thrown out by SCOTUS? At any rate, given the tepid reaction of Congress, I don't see an amendment happening anytime soon. Hell, at this point the ideological tribalism is so bad, I'm not sure they could agree on an amendment outlawing the kicking of puppies.
- yuhong 13y agoI am thinking about defining foreign spying powers of the government.
- avar 13y agoOnce you change the constitution it can't be thrown out be the SCOTUS by definition. They can interpret constitutional law or declare law unconstitutional, they can't blatantly ignore the constitution (well, in theory...). In short, the facility to reverse supreme court decisions is a constitutional amendment.
- jessriedel 13y agolukifer is asking about whether a normal bill (law) would be sufficient, as opposed to yuhong's suggestions of a constitutional amendment.
- rayiner 13y ago> Would a bill to explicitly define the 4th to include data storage have sufficient force of law? I don't think it would be a separation of powers problem in and of itself, but by virtue of separation of powers the judiciary wouldn't be bound to follow that interpretation.
- s_q_b 13y ago
- bionerd 13y agoThis is great news but will it really force certain agencies and powerful circles to stop what they've been doing all this time in secret? And if not, what could?
- snarfy 13y agoIf it's unconstitutional, we don't need new laws to fix it. The existing laws (the constitution) need to be enforced. It's a failure of the judiciary, not the legislative branch.
- geekam 13y agoIt seems like a failure of legislative branch too. But I want to ask you what can be done if the judiciary branch fails or is corrupt?
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoCongress can very easily act to define the terms of the debate on these legal questions by defining "due process" (and similar factors). The courts are obliged to show reasonable deference to Congress. Congress chooses not to, and that is implicit acceptance by the majority and minority leadership in both houses of Congress.
- rayiner 13y agoYou can't take it for granted that it is, in fact, unconstitutional, just because the EFF says so. The EFF has its interpretation of the 4th amendment, just like the ACLU. They take very expansive views of what those amendment means. Taking narrower views is not a "failure of the judiciary." It's disagreement over a document that can legitimately be interpreted in different ways.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoFurthermore, what holds the Executive in check is the combined vigilance of Congress and the Judiciary. The Judiciary must show reasonable deference to Congress when it comes to defining such things as "due process". If Congress chooses to create a due process in which it seems very easy for the Executive to get its way (e.g. the FISA court), on what legal basis is a sitting judge supposed to stand in the way? Unless it is completely obvious by existing legal precedent, a federal judge might rightly suppose it is the job of the Appellate and SCOTUS to define any new yardsticks. FISA courts, PRISM, NSA, drone assassinations,... Congress holds in their hands the power to define the terms of the debate. That they choose not to is simply because the minority and majority leadership in both houses of Congress more greatly fear having to explain their own position to the American people, than they fear any particular arguable abuse by this president.
- frou_dh 13y agoNo dice. They've taken the cellophane off of that gargantuan data centre, so it's too late to return it for a refund.
- dragontamer 13y agoThe crux of this article is that these Senators don't know how to fix the problem. That is far from correct. Why? Senators Wyden and Udall are part of the Senate Intelligence Committee. They have full access to the secret discussions going on, and the practical implementation of them. They are fully briefed on these issues, and hold clearances, as well as hold the power to investigate Top Secret America. Instead of assuming ignorance on Wyden and Udall's part... perhaps the EFF should be analyzing their proposals.
- Vivtek 13y agoInstead of assuming ignorance, we should simply assume intent. But I think ignorance probably is sufficiently explanatory - access to snake oil sales pitches doesn't ensure informed decisions.
- dragontamer 13y agoWyden and Udall have been consistently against these programs damn near a decade, and have been trying to reform section 215 of the Patriot act the whole time. Wyden and Udall have not had to "change" their opinion before or after this controversy, they've been consistently against it the whole time. Their reforms are the same that they've been pitching for many years, its just that no one has been listening. If you notice, they are the ones who are forcing the NSA to correct their public statements. http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-and-udall-to-general-alexander-nsa-must-correct-inaccurate-statement-in-fact-sheet http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-and-udall-t... They don't just listen to the NSA, they also correct the mistakes the NSA makes in public.
- Vivtek 13y agoYeah, I see that. But have they really drawn public attention to it? No. They've gone with the flow because they somehow agree that if the American public knows the law that governs them, we will all be killed in our beds by terrorists. I have very little respect for people with the access and clout that Wyden and Udall have who fail to actually take any action outside their little box despite their probable understanding that this whole thing is undermining American democracy. And that's why I don't feel bad about ascribing intent. Sure, they want to introduce mild reform without breaking any rules or expectations - but they want to keep their perky little jobs as opposed to taking an actual stand. Why haven't they proposed any legislation addressing the fact that our policymakers are sworn to secrecy so they can't get a second opinion about the line they're being fed? Why haven't they brought any of this to the public for debate? Because they actually think that - except for a few tweaks - it is a good thing for America to be run by secret bodies using secret policies and judged only by secret courts. They have acclimated to a two-tier system of justice, one for people with pull and another for you and me.
- Daniel_Newby 13y agoThis whole dispute is obsolete. Pretty soon the 3D printers will be cranking out isotope separators. Afterwards everyone will be part of a total surveillance society, by process of natural selection. We should consider this a practice run for learning how to build a transparent society that works.
- drdaeman 13y agoDecreeing that governments should not try to infiltrate their citizen's (and not only their) privacy is like decreeing that terrorists should not possess explosives. The point is, if they'd find a possibility to do that, they still will do whatever's in their interests. IMHO, the only reasonable option is to embrace the inevitable and explicitly allow any wiretapping (on any level, for anyone just because they can - not only for TLAs and law enforcement; with a several year of grace period, so the everyone could prepare themselves) and force the world to secure their communications and not rely on promises that nobody would peek at them.
- teeja 13y agoWe don't need to change the constitution. We need to insist that the 4th amendment be honored immediately. We are not at war. There must be a full, open Congressional investigation (like Church) which pries open the so-called secret interpretation of the law (an idea which is utterly anti-American). We must subsequently have an informed discussion about how to do what needs doing to for real (not fear-driven) protection of citizens, while reversing the invasion of privacy clearly forbidden by the 4th, restoring explicit warrants backed by clear and unambiguous evidence. This is a time to form a hard, hard line. If we do not at this time, then we should expect further dismantling of the Constitutional rights that millions of Americans have fought and lost their limbs for. I do not usually talk like this, but this is an extraordinary and dangerous time in our nation's history, one ripe for further abuse. Our Congresspeople need to recognize that their jobs are unquestionably on the line if they don't fix this situation.
- Vivtek 13y agoI thought we agreed we're at war until people stop using terrorism. That's what the President told me, anyway.