5 ms·

Rep. Justin Amash has brought forth a bill to defund the NSA. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/17333823810/rep-justin-amash-pushing-to-strip-nsas-fund

Rep. Justin Amash has brought forth a bill to defund the NSA. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/17333823810/rep-justin-amash-pushing-to-strip-nsas-funding-with-amendment-to-defense-appropriations-bill.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/17333823810/rep-ju...

fixxer 13y ago
Awesome. I'm wondering if the NSA is willing to self-fund? I'm sure, given their omnipotence and excellent ears, they could, perhaps, make a few ticks in the stock market. ;) Before I get labelled tin-foily, let us recall Iran-Contra and longstanding allegations regarding the CIA's drug trafficking... there is precedence.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  I don't think there's anything tin-foil about what you're suggesting. The Iran-Contra affair speaks for itself, IMO.
  - D9u 13y ago
    I agree, especially after reading about the NSA basically "Hoovering" all electronic communications since before I was born. (mid 1960's)
  - samstave 13y ago
    Here is some tin-foil: So does the CIA drug trafficking. However - the country is done-for. The presidency is a CIA-bankster puppet position. The CIA (GW Bush++) took over starting in the 70s (when Cheney and Rumsfeld were lurking behind Ford and Carter. Clinton's got rise to power after allowing the CIA to run everything through Mena Arkansas. (look into it). The banksters launder everything for the CIA (Wachovia, HSBC, et al) The coup happened already.
    - pstuart 13y ago
      Those cocaine shipments were for inner-city youths that couldn't afford drugs. It was for the kids!
    - fixxer 13y ago
      Fox Mulder?
- spikels 13y ago
  Perhaps they could go into cloud storage or ad targeting. Seems like they would have skills in those areas. They may have been the original SaaS providor.
  - jka 13y ago
    Communications backup provider - screw SMS Backup / voicemail - backup.nsa.gov could provide a friendly web interface to retrieve and search back through transcriptions/audio of your phone calls in case you forget where it was you mentioned you'd meet someone, or the tone of your date's voice when he/she said they'd be running ten minutes late, etc.
- staunch 13y ago
  They could probably just modify financial various transactions. Even 0.01% of annual transactions would add up pretty nicely. Levy their own tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing
- angersock 13y ago
  Jesus Christ we get a bit closer to Snow Crash every day, now don't we?
bazillion 13y ago
There are plenty of kneejerk reactions to what has been put out in the news lately, but actions like this equally bypass a necessary public debate. Without sufficient knowledge of what is actually transpiring, the American public isn't in the position to say "this is right", or "this is wrong" about what the NSA _actually_ does versus what people conjecture it does. If you're saying, "I know what the NSA does because Snowden, some slides, and people on the internet told me so", then you're still in the group of heavily misinformed. I would definitely like to see information brought to light from the government's side in a constructive way, and help frame a national debate over these programs. Discussing the legality of foreign and domestic surveillance and constructing a (public) legal rationale will, hopefully, provide a solid foundation for future generations. Regardless of what is or isn't going on, it's pretty obvious to the common citizen that the rationale for current actions are derived from equivocating legalese.
- insuffi 13y ago
  While your approach seems to be the rational way to go about it, it's simply impractical. Officials constantly lie under oath(legalese and national security), and admit to wrongdoings only when they are exposed, and there's absolutely nowhere for them to go. When it is established beyond reasonable doubt, only then they come forward. Following this kind of pattern, there is no way to have constructive debate. Besides, the government releasing information themselves is a political dead-end.(hint: there's a difference between suspecting(conspiracy theories, tin foil hats etc) and knowing.)
- rhizome 13y ago
  I would definitely like to see information brought to light from the government's side in a constructive way How do you propose to gauge "constructive" when the basis of the government's position is that those they are surveilling deserve to be surveilled? Your desire requires a conflict of interest on their part (the continued employment and non-prosecution of James Clapper and Keith Alexander testify to this). Furthermore, your attempt to marginalize Snowden is unseemly.
Afforess 13y ago
Yes! I know most people suffer from the "my congressman is the only non-corrupt one"-syndrome, but I actually can say that and not be bullshitting. He's done a great job representing Grand Rapids and Michigan.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  My congressman is Diane Feinstein. I am under no such delusion.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Feinstein is your Senator, along with Barbara Boxer. Your congressperson is one of the people on this list: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/CA http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/CA
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      Is Diane Feinstein not my congressman? Isn't the Senate part of Congress? Aren't Senators Congressmen too?
      - bmelton 13y ago
        Apologies for the parataxis. I was just clarifying because when you said 'my', I assumed you were referring to the precinct. Senators are Congresspeople, and if you'd said "Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer" I'd have probably read it differently.
    - samstave 13y ago
      Both of which are self-serving opportunistic scumbags. Edit: ha, whomever downvoted me is clearly not familiar with these people. Look at Bechtel and how that company fits in here. See Anonymous' release today on the $700,000 in bribes one of these folks took... Do t downvoted a comment if you have no clue to what it is referring to.
- bmelton 13y ago
protomyth 13y ago
It is an amendment to "H.R. 2397: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014" that reads: Amash-Conyers-Massie-Mulvaney-Polis Amendment: "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to collect tangible things (including telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the duration of calls) pursuant to an order under section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) if such things do not pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation described in such section." It does not defund the NSA.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

fixxer 13y ago

Awesome. I'm wondering if the NSA is willing to self-fund? I'm sure, given their omnipotence and excellent ears, they could, perhaps, make a few ticks in the stock market. ;) Before I get labelled tin-foily, let us recall Iran-Contra and longstanding allegations regarding the CIA's drug trafficking... there is precedence.

mindcrime 13y ago
I don't think there's anything tin-foil about what you're suggesting. The Iran-Contra affair speaks for itself, IMO.
- D9u 13y ago
  I agree, especially after reading about the NSA basically "Hoovering" all electronic communications since before I was born. (mid 1960's)
- samstave 13y ago
  Here is some tin-foil: So does the CIA drug trafficking. However - the country is done-for. The presidency is a CIA-bankster puppet position. The CIA (GW Bush++) took over starting in the 70s (when Cheney and Rumsfeld were lurking behind Ford and Carter. Clinton's got rise to power after allowing the CIA to run everything through Mena Arkansas. (look into it). The banksters launder everything for the CIA (Wachovia, HSBC, et al) The coup happened already.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    Those cocaine shipments were for inner-city youths that couldn't afford drugs. It was for the kids!
  - fixxer 13y ago
    Fox Mulder?
spikels 13y ago
Perhaps they could go into cloud storage or ad targeting. Seems like they would have skills in those areas. They may have been the original SaaS providor.
- jka 13y ago
  Communications backup provider - screw SMS Backup / voicemail - backup.nsa.gov could provide a friendly web interface to retrieve and search back through transcriptions/audio of your phone calls in case you forget where it was you mentioned you'd meet someone, or the tone of your date's voice when he/she said they'd be running ten minutes late, etc.
staunch 13y ago
They could probably just modify financial various transactions. Even 0.01% of annual transactions would add up pretty nicely. Levy their own tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing
angersock 13y ago
Jesus Christ we get a bit closer to Snow Crash every day, now don't we?

bazillion 13y ago

There are plenty of kneejerk reactions to what has been put out in the news lately, but actions like this equally bypass a necessary public debate. Without sufficient knowledge of what is actually transpiring, the American public isn't in the position to say "this is right", or "this is wrong" about what the NSA _actually_ does versus what people conjecture it does. If you're saying, "I know what the NSA does because Snowden, some slides, and people on the internet told me so", then you're still in the group of heavily misinformed. I would definitely like to see information brought to light from the government's side in a constructive way, and help frame a national debate over these programs. Discussing the legality of foreign and domestic surveillance and constructing a (public) legal rationale will, hopefully, provide a solid foundation for future generations. Regardless of what is or isn't going on, it's pretty obvious to the common citizen that the rationale for current actions are derived from equivocating legalese.

insuffi 13y ago
While your approach seems to be the rational way to go about it, it's simply impractical. Officials constantly lie under oath(legalese and national security), and admit to wrongdoings only when they are exposed, and there's absolutely nowhere for them to go. When it is established beyond reasonable doubt, only then they come forward. Following this kind of pattern, there is no way to have constructive debate. Besides, the government releasing information themselves is a political dead-end.(hint: there's a difference between suspecting(conspiracy theories, tin foil hats etc) and knowing.)
rhizome 13y ago
I would definitely like to see information brought to light from the government's side in a constructive way How do you propose to gauge "constructive" when the basis of the government's position is that those they are surveilling deserve to be surveilled? Your desire requires a conflict of interest on their part (the continued employment and non-prosecution of James Clapper and Keith Alexander testify to this). Furthermore, your attempt to marginalize Snowden is unseemly.

Afforess 13y ago

Yes! I know most people suffer from the "my congressman is the only non-corrupt one"-syndrome, but I actually can say that and not be bullshitting. He's done a great job representing Grand Rapids and Michigan.

chris_mahan 13y ago
My congressman is Diane Feinstein. I am under no such delusion.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Feinstein is your Senator, along with Barbara Boxer. Your congressperson is one of the people on this list: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/CA http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/CA
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Is Diane Feinstein not my congressman? Isn't the Senate part of Congress? Aren't Senators Congressmen too?
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Apologies for the parataxis. I was just clarifying because when you said 'my', I assumed you were referring to the precinct. Senators are Congresspeople, and if you'd said "Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer" I'd have probably read it differently.
  - samstave 13y ago
    Both of which are self-serving opportunistic scumbags. Edit: ha, whomever downvoted me is clearly not familiar with these people. Look at Bechtel and how that company fits in here. See Anonymous' release today on the $700,000 in bribes one of these folks took... Do t downvoted a comment if you have no clue to what it is referring to.
bmelton 13y ago

protomyth 13y ago

It is an amendment to "H.R. 2397: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014" that reads: Amash-Conyers-Massie-Mulvaney-Polis Amendment: "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to collect tangible things (including telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the duration of calls) pursuant to an order under section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) if such things do not pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation described in such section." It does not defund the NSA.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]