16 ms·

Block NSA funding for collecting the call records of all Americans

482 points by sinak 13y ago

donohoe 13y ago
I called all three of my listed representatives - the phone was answered almost immediately. It took less than 5 minutes of my time. It may even take you less. It was quite pleasant. Do it now!
- jaxbot 13y ago
  Agreed. The people you call know exactly what to expect and make it as quick and painless as possible. They're also very pleasant. I'm young and shy but this was probably the easiest social interaction I've ever done. Worth a shot, worth 30 seconds.
s_q_b 13y ago
This won't work. Even if they defund the existing programs, the IC will just change the codenames and move them around between departments, as they did with TIA. The technology will live on. The only way to really end these programs would be a full public debate followed by a statute that outright bans them. Anything less is a PR move.
- LoganCale 13y ago
  Even if it ultimately doesn't work, don't you think it's worth trying rather than just going around saying it won't work? It's likely going to be a long, slow process to change this, and we need all the wins we can get, if only to prevent apathy and show others who are on the fence that there's enough public outrage over this that they should get involved too. If we do manage to get it passed and then there are new leaks a few years down the road that they did what you describe—move the programs around and keep running them—I think that would cause far greater outrage, because Congress explicitly banned them from continuing the programs and they ignored it.
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    No. I don't think it's worth trying. If this is your goal, I think there are far more effective ways to go about it. 1. First, you'll need a political organization that is single-mindedly focused on this one issue. You'll need donors, professional lobbyists, a PR team, and a massive grassroots organization. Think Anti-Saloon League meets Rules for Radicals. 2. Then you focus on one or two elections of prominent politicians. Find someone vulnerable in the Senate. Then find an opponent that will vote against these policies, and win. That will put your group on the map in Washington. 3. Have your newly elected champion propose legislation that addresses policy avenues for which there is already support in Washington. I would focus on two areas: fixing the FISA court, and forming an investigatory committee. Making the FISA court more than a rubber stamp will accomplish many of your goals in the short term. In brief, a few reforms that could go a long way would be the addition of attorneys appointed to oppose the government in motions, fair appointment process, and regularly publishing the findings of law of the court with the fact patterns redacted. Forming an investigatory commission will accomplish your goals in the long term. A top to bottom review of the classified practices of the government, in both public and closed hearings, will bring the information up from the depths of the executive branch. Knowledge will breed more outrage, which will fuel both your political organization and grassroots efforts. If you're successful, the result will look much like the Church Committee. Your ultimate goal should be to statutorily ban the programs, but you won't get there in one step, and certainly won't get close by cutting the funding to a few programs. I'm not saying you shouldn't try, if this is your sincerely held belief. I'm simply saying that playing whack-a-mole with particular programs is a spectacularly ineffective way to pursue your goals.
    - LoganCale 13y ago
      I agree with you that those are all good ways to take action, but I disagree with you that this bill is not worth trying as well. This doesn't target specific NSA programs by name, but amends Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to forbid its use to collect records for people who are not subject to an investigation under that same Section. It's far from an end to domestic surveillance, but it's a significant limitation on the legality of what they're currently doing. Why should we have to elect new people to Congress before taking any further action when we have members of Congress pushing good and legitimate measures already? Should more be done in addition to this? Absolutely. I think it's completely asinine to say that this is a worthless measure, however, and that no one should even try.
- abecedarius 13y ago
  In politics, partial victories can snowball. And vice versa: repeated loss teaches helplessness. The direct real effect of this would be small, but I'd expect it to be much more useful than a loss. Added: If you read about Watergate, the scandal wasn't any one event or one reaction: it took over two years from the break-in to the resignation, and people weren't sitting still. Some of the important action was in Congress. (Admittedly it was a different country then.)
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    This isn't Watergate. There isn't widespread public outrage. If you want to change the policies, you'll need to generate or simulate that outrage first.
    - abecedarius 13y ago
      Watergate made barely a ripple at first, according to Woodward and Bernstein's book. It built up over time.
      - hga 13y ago
        I was politically aware at the time, it was more than a ripple---burglary of the DNC headquarters meant something---but it wasn't big for a long time, and even longer before it became bipartisan. This is the very first (recorded) vote on the issue; even if it were 100% symbolic, which way it goes, how many votes for it will make a difference going forward. And this is bipartisan from the beginning: in a Republican House, an heretofore obscure Republican is the sponsor with the very prominent Democrat John Conyers as the leading co-sponsor.
        abecedarius 13y ago
        Thanks for the correction. I agree about the significance.
nakedrobot2 13y ago
This is something real, tangible, and valuable that we can all actually do. All of this month I have felt powerless. This is something within everyone's power to do, and it can definitely help start the ball rolling back the way it came. It is pretty unfortunate that there is such a short window of time in which this information can be disseminated. I can imagine if there were a bit more time, this could really spread over the whole Web, as the SOPA outroar did. Anyway, we have to do the best we can, with the time we have.
- icantthinkofone 13y ago
  Yeah! That'll work! Just like the Occupy movement. Will there be beer?
  - toyg 13y ago
    I hope you'll be downvoted to hell. HN should be about constructive criticism. We're all intelligent people, we can all tear down anything we put our mind at, but that doesn't mean that we should, or we wouldn't leave our house every day. I know I'm a cynic and it's a bad habit I'm trying to change, maybe you should try too.
    - jehovahrova 13y ago
      Do you imagine your comment constructive?
      - toyg 13y ago
        If it can prevent the next wiseass from spouting his mouth, yes.
        jehovahrova 13y ago
        "I hope you'll be downvoted to hell." "I know I'm a cynic and it's a bad habit I'm trying to change, maybe you should try too." You're just an ass hiding his assyness behind false righteousness.
clicks 13y ago
Looks good, is to the point, very convenient -- tells you what to say, who to say it to. Wonderful job guys. I think this is going to be a pretty effective grassroots campaign.
Yuioup 13y ago
I have a question. It's pretty much a safe bet that the NSA runs Open Source Software. You can't do anything on the internet these days without using FLOSS. I'm not an expert in software licenses but can't GNU, Linus, Mozilla and all other Open Source contributers revoke the NSA's license to use their software? Surely Open Source licenses, just like any other license, can be revoked?
- rquirk 13y ago
  Not likely to happen - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- davidw 13y ago
  It's not open source if you specify who can and cannot use it. There was some bit of software years ago that had a clause like "no neonazis may use this software", and it got DQ'ed from Debian because that made it not free software. It's a bit like free speech: you really want to be very, very careful about limiting what people can say.
  - johnsoft 13y ago
    That reminds me of this blog post – http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions
- random42 13y ago
  They they can't. Most (all?) of the opensource licenses do not have the "revokable clause" with them.
  - Yuioup 13y ago
    Ok. What happens if GNU decides to Fork the GPL v3 and call it "GPLv3+NSA Exception" and then relicense all their code to this new forked license? A clause in this forked license is that the NSA can't use it.
snitko 13y ago
I think this is fighting the symptom rather than the cause. NSA is a symptom of a much larger problem, which is taxes. If you didn't have them, you wouldn't have to demand those things in the first place, because all the money you'd give would be given voluntarily and to organizations that you choose and think are important.
- unimpressive 13y ago
  >which is taxes Let's start with the possible, shall we?
  - snitko 13y ago
    I agree. Let's use Bitcoin. It's possible right here today and you don't give anyone a cut.
- czr80 13y ago
  So, let me get this straight: we abolish taxes, eliminate governments, and then ... paradise?
  - snitko 13y ago
    It depends on how you define paradise. If paradise is the same as now, but without massively killing population of foreign countries with drones, keeping people in prison without trial and massively spying on your own people, then yes, it's going to be paradise. If your question is whether we can still have a civilized, stable and prosperous society, ask yourself would the demand for the good things that are currently provided by the government go? Would people still need roads and fire protection and security?
    - falk 13y ago
      It's been working pretty well for Somalia I hear.
    - unimpressive 13y ago
rb2e 13y ago
The NSA is the heart of the intelligence gathering apparatus of the US Military Industrial Complex. Like it or not, this bill will pass either tomorrow or another day, tacked on to another bill. It is strategic to the military and the country. There is no way in hell, this bill will not pass. You can scream, occupy the streets, protest, do whatever but it will not change a thing. It will go through. The US military Industrial Complex is vast. It lobby’s hard. To vote against it is to be called “un-American”- you know its BS but the talking heads will say it. Its powerful but that isn’t the point of this post. Truthfully, our governments have been spying on us for a long time. My country, the UK was reading the mail and telegrams long before the US. Then it was listening and recording phone calls. This is just a step up. As technology increased capabilities, the net has grown wider. From ECHELON to this. Civil liberties does not mean anything to them as the mindset has stayed the same no matter how much you may scream or complain, realistically it will not change a thing because at the end of the day, the country will have enemies and it needs an intelligence gathering capability. It won’t give a damn about our rights as it tries to secure itself.
- infinity0 13y ago
  Your post accomplishes nothing except to persuade people to give up the fight for civil liberties. You propose no solution or do you give any additional insight into developing a solution. Regardless of your actual intentions, you might as well be performing psychological propaganda. It's not helpful.
  - rb2e 13y ago
    No offence is taken. I've been reading and studying Intelligence/espionage for a long time. Not the fancy James Bond stuff, just the boring average, mundane stuff of the past 100 years. I offer no solution because quite frankly, there isn't one. Unless you want to shut down the US military's and civilian intelligence gathering capabilities, it's not going to happen. There will always be reading your mail and listening in to your phonecalls. It is not going to stop. I am not for this, I love my privacy but I am simply pointing out what will happen, regardless of any action taken.
johnpowell 13y ago
We elected Bush in 2004 when he had Tom Ridge upping the terror alert every week before the election. It never seemed to go down. But it always managed to go up to red every week. I think we have hit the point that you can't really roll anything back. If you do and 9/11 v.2.0 happens you are politically screwed. And, unfortunately, it is all about the next election and soccer moms.
- falk 13y ago
  "We elected Bush in 2004 when he had Tom Ridge upping the terror alert every week before the election." You hit the nail right on the head. The problem in America isn't the politicians, it's the people.
  - Ackley 13y ago
    If Obama would do what he promised he would do, we would be in a better situation right now (about the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, etc..)
    - johnpowell 13y ago
      I do honestly believe that he wanted to do the right thing. But once he got more info he had to change his mind. For all I know they prevent 1 attack per week. I have no clue. So I think we need to have the security verses privacy debate. If the country is like my sister she thinks she doesn't do anything and will pick security every time. She has three kids that love soccer.
sinak 13y ago
Just a quick note to add that this was built over the course of 5 hours by four developers as part of http://taskforce.is http://taskforce.is, which was pretty much assembled here on Hacker News. Please take a few minutes to call. It's amazing how low conversion rates are on calling campaigns like this one - a factor of 100 lower than email asks - but this is really critical. We only have one day to make this happen. If you're interested in helping with campaigns like this in the future, you can sign up here: http://sina.is/rritf.html http://sina.is/rritf.html A big thanks to Thomas Davis, Jens Nockert, and Beau Gunderson for building the site.
- andyakb 13y ago
  I would strongly recommend including an auto email form. Maybe not as powerful as a phone calll, but conversions will be much higher
  - jlgaddis 13y ago
    "Form e-mails" to representatives are pretty much completely ignored, as I understand it. Does it really matter if "x" percent converted if it has zero effect anyway?
- triplepoint217 13y ago
  I just called. A feature that would be really nice: A way for me to give them my email address and zip code and then get an email when vote results are posted with how my Representative voted.
  - Hario 13y ago
    That's a really good idea.
- MorningInfidel 13y ago
  Best of luck and god speed with this initiative. Were I a US citizen, I would be calling my representative.
sebkomianos 13y ago
Do we really believe that "a vote" can change such things? Do we really believe that we can avoid such situations (= non-transparent governments) within the current system? I mean, when did you actually vote FOR the NSA funding in the first place so that you can now believe that you can defund it by voting against?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- MisterWebz 13y ago
  > remember that threats from the US are the only thing that prevents many countries from doing more horrible shit than they already do. You mean horrible shit like drone strikes that kill innocent civilians, illegally detaining "terrorists" and torturing them, spying on the whole world, and commanding other countries to ground a president's plane? Is that the kind of shit "they" already do?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - joyeuse6701 13y ago
    Nah bro they target civilians and blow them up en masse. If you had to pick the lesser of two evils, the answer is pretty clear I think.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      I guess 100+ plus drone strikes y/y with civillian casualties isn't en masse? Wasn't there a drone strike that killed over a hundred women and children at a school in pakistan? And lets not forget Falujah. It was pretty much turned into Depleted Urainium wasteland... and theres a WHO report on that. Sounds like those evils are brothers...
      - joyeuse6701 13y ago
        Suppose a Drone killed 3000 civilians with the intention of killing civilians (like Dresden or Tokyo bombings of WWII) then I'd say yeah, they're siblings but: Nah, civilians are collateral damage for drones, the goal was not to kill as many of them as possible and terrorize them. It was to eliminate particular individuals, so no it's not en masse. If we take your 100 women and children (heh, nice) and say they were without a doubt killed by a drone and were killed intentionally as a target by the drones I would say: You're still off by an order of cardinality in comparison. So that's a bad comparison too. Falujah, where there was a battle and there were actual enemy combatants in a stronghold city and you're complaining about the depleted uranium after the fact? Sure you could remove context to everything and you'll get exactly what you're saying: Drivel. A WHO report? So? That assertion alone is supposed to do what, reinforce how deplorable Falujah is on account of the weapons used? Tell ya what when you're in charge of arming your soldiers of your nation and someone says: "you can use depleted uranium to penetrate the armor of your enemies but it'll have negative effect on the environment, or you can use just lead with negligible armor piercing and minimal comparative environmental effect." You can pick the environmental choice and tell the dead parents and the dying soldiers you're responsible for that you didn't want to pick armor piercing rounds because you were trying to protect the future flora and fauna of a foreign land you don't have sovereignty over. Or you could tell them that you did everything in your power to do your job and service to the nation and it's people in arming the soldiers under your command and that the integrity of the environment of a city in Iraq was secondary to your concern over American lives.
Dr_chaos 13y ago
LOL Fools You know that the CIA run most of the drugs in and out of the great US. You know that they have massive surplus cash? Like so big they don't really know what to do with it These 'government' bodies can and will exist without government. This is how they fund most if not all their black ops, that way nothing needs to be on the books. if we stopped public money, I doubt it would even make a dent
- falk 13y ago
  This may sound farfetched, but it's not. If you're interested in learning more about the CIA and drugs, I recommend the following: - The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade by Alfred W. McCoy [1] - Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press by Alexander Cockburn [2] - Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond by Martin A. Lee [3] [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global/dp/1556524838/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global/... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Whiteout-The-CIA-Drugs-Press/dp/1859848974/ http://www.amazon.com/Whiteout-The-CIA-Drugs-Press/dp/185984... [3] http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Dreams-Complete-History-Sixties/dp/0802130623/ http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Dreams-Complete-History-Sixties/d...
- grabhive 13y ago
  I'm glad to see someone else pointing this out. I did so myself here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6089979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6089979 I want so suggest however, that you follow my lead in taking a sternly honest but less antagonistic approach to the topic. This reality implies a complete breakdown of democracy, which is terrifying. And while it may be true, we won't get far calling each other "fools", even if the effort is impotent. Still, let me reiterate that I'm very glad you said it.
vaadu 13y ago
"The bill gives taxpayer money to fund defense programs, including NSA surveillance." Why does it take money to defund an operation? Doesn't "defund" mean to not allocate money for. Obama says he will veto. So what? If no money is allocated for said programs where is the budget for them coming from? These NSA programs are only the tip of the iceberg of intrusions. <a href="The http://www.govexec.com/technology/2013/04/consumer-bureau-defends-data-collecting/62730/">Consumer http://www.govexec.com/technology/2013/04/consumer-bureau-de... Credit Bureau</a> collects all financial data on US citizens and obamacare will be collecting and sharing everything medical with numerous federal agencies.
mtgx 13y ago
In theory it sounds nice, but how many black ops and secret budgets already exist? "Defunding the NSA", will just mean its "official" budget will be cut, and under everyone's noses, they will keep being funded through secret budgets. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen - eventually - but first the priority should be to repeal the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, and end the secret FISA Court, or at least overhaul it in such a way that it's public, judges get elected in a much more democratic way than simply having one person naming them, as it is right now, and allow adversarial hearings, and for people to be able to use FOIA against this sort of spying. If it's done on an American citizen (under a proper warrant - and not en masse), then that citizen should be able to request a FOIA for it, and get an almost completely unredacted document. If there's an investigation done on him currently, then at most he can get a few months delay, to a year. After that everyone should be able to use FOIA to get these documents.
dfc 13y ago
Didn't congress say no to funding the stealth MH-60 SOF variant and later see tail rotor of a stealth MH-60 SOF variant in someone's backyard in Abbottabad?
- mpyne 13y ago
  I think you're thinking of the Comanche helo. There's absolutely zero chance IMHO that Congress actually went out of their way to de-fund a fancy SOF toy.
  - dfc 13y ago
    I am almost positive it was the MH60. If my memory is correct: Congress did not defund it, they just did not authorize the funds to go forward with the plans to build a stealth MH60 SOF. Upon hearing the news the CIA said fuck it we have some black budget money we will pay for it. The next time congress heard about the program was news reports about a tail rotor from a stealth chopper in some guys yard in Abbottabad.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
No, no, a thousand times no. Hey, I'm the biggest fan of anonymity and privacy you can find. This is not an answer. It's an emotional over-reaction. Countries need intelligence agencies -- they are the best way NOT to fight future wars. SIGINT is a useful function when used against foreign leaders. It's just a terrible idea when used against the population as a whole. Separate the parts that work and are useful from the parts that are destroying the country. Just don't lump it all together. Unilaterally disarming is not a way forward. The only thing you accomplish by doing that is allowing dozens of other countries to spy on you without your knowledge. How is that a solution? These movements are in real danger of becoming "useful idiots" for others who wish us harm [1] The only solution here is parity, i.e., whatever blanket surveillance is going on by corporations and the government regarding every citizen should be available to all citizens. This policy would naturally severely limit these kinds of operations without asking us to make broad decisions about delicate matters. If you insist on defunding something, de-fund and kill the TSA. Then eliminate DHS and have the work go back to the separate agencies. But don't take a flamethrower to something which has a useful, important purpose because the politicians changed their mission to something terrible. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
- andyakb 13y ago
  Read the website. Despite the name, it is not about defunding the entire nsa, but instead about removing the authorization and funding for blanket data collection
  - DanielBMarkham 13y ago
    You understand that my argument was not against all blanket data collection by the NSA, right? In many cases it might still work. That's the entire point: this issue does not reduce to simple answers, only shared values that can then discuss depending on the particular situation. Address-to-address SIGiNT, two hops out, with only the address and time? I might could get behind that -- as long as I had that data also. This discussion is not about surveillance. We are going to have that anyway. All this does is give it to every other country but us. This discussion is about priviledge -- who gets access to what? Apologies for reaction to the link bait title, but that doesn't change the point I'm making.
coldcode 13y ago
The best way to rein in the NSA is make it difficult or impossible for it to find and hire employees and contractors. Without people it cannot function.
sauravt 13y ago
I was shocked for a while, since I read it as defendthensa.
spaznode 13y ago
Makes sense hn would too vote such a stupid idea. If it didn't exist already something like it would have to be created.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  The Soviet Union went out of business in 1991. Why do we still have a mechanism that was built to target a closed totalitarian system armed with 20 megaton hydrogen bombs? The NSA is out of date and out of place.
  - spaznode 13y ago
    =) This assumes you have correctly defined what"it" is and does? Or what current is? Current isn't on tv.
brown9-2 13y ago
Instead of voting to block funding for programs, why not repeal the laws that enable those programs in the first place? I don't understand this logic.
- glesica 13y ago
  Because that would be a concrete step that would actually change something and would be a clear signal as to how each representative stands on the issue of unlimited domestic surveillance.
- mcherm 13y ago
  The laws do NOT enable the programs. The laws had specific clauses stating that they could not be used for this sort of widespread surveillance of innocent citizens. But the administration has an "interpretation" of the laws which apparently is at odds with the plain text of the law. I can't say HOW they came by this interpretation, because the interpretation of the law is secret. (Yeah... really.) So maybe the power of the purse will still be effective. We can hope.
  - brown9-2 13y ago
    Or Congress could pass new laws that remove any ambiguity that allows for a different "interpretation" than what was intended.
    - siddboots 13y ago
      Even so, they are doing it this way because it is a late amendment to the directly related Defense Appropriations Bill. They can hardly stick clarifications to the Patriot Act on to it. It would be great to "treat the cause, not the symptoms", but they didn't have the immediate opportunity to do that.
- perlpimp 13y ago
  How can you repeal secret laws? There were report so secret laws and secret interpretations being used for 'justification' of unconstitutional activities.
culshaw 13y ago
Remove the funding and they will get it from elsewhere; that 50 years worth of data just became market research.
mcherm 13y ago
Important point: (This point was made clear in the actual page, but some of the comments suggest that not everyone understood it.) The title to this posting (and the name of the website) are misleading. This is not a proposal to block funding for the NSA. And that's good, because such a proposal would have NO chance of passing, and would probably be a bad idea anyhow. Instead, this is a proposal to block funding for NSA collecting records on American citizens that are not being investigated. Which is a much more reasonable position.
- sneak 13y ago
  Unfortunately, even if NSA stopped all domestic spying, the fact that they have programs like PRISM that silently turn any US company into a snitch for the US military means that the US internet industry has suffered an irreparable blow. Obama getting on national TV and saying "we only target foreign entities" is the worst possible thing that could have happened. Even if all of this stuff works, the spying on foreigners via compelling US service providers to wiretap them is sufficient to end the internet industry in the USA as we know it.
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    It should be banning surveillance of anyone not under active investigation, not simply domestically.
    - meepmorp 13y ago
      Why? Persons who are not US citizens who are not on US territory aren't given protections under our constitution. What's the reasoning behind this? Surveillance serves a national interest for the US, and while there ought to be limitations for domestic surveillance, I don't see why those ought to exist for foreigners in other countries.
      - calt 13y ago
        Sneak is speaking specifically about the impact on the US IT industry. As an American IT worker, I agree. "Not subject to US jurisdiction" is becoming a feature.
snsr 13y ago
More info - http://rules.house.gov/bill/hr-2397 http://rules.house.gov/bill/hr-2397 Amendment #100
grabhive 13y ago
Nearly everything that the NSA does is Top Secret, so can we claim to know anything about its activities? Why do we believe that we have the power to defund it, when we don't actually know where it gets its money, or how much it receives? Are posters here aware that the CIA has long been accused of being involved in the global drug trade, as a means of self-financing and leveraging power? Despite the recent revelations having vindicated the world's tin-foil-hats, we still seem to collectively lack the stomach for darker conspiratorial notions. To be in step with reality, it may be important to build up a bit of tolerance. I'm not making any claims (because I just don't know), but I see absolutely no reason to assume that democratic process applies to these agencies. They may have gone rogue; they may have always been rogue. Their global network may be the actual, de-facto world government. Would it really surprise anyone at this point if a convincing leak exposed such notions? What would we do then? Let's stop imagining that Law will take care of this problem so we can at least assume a proper direction for our efforts. Which is to say, let's dispense with some of our convenience and fashions and start writing software the right way -- the paranoid way. To quote the eternal R. Buckminster Fuller: "In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete."
dsschnau 13y ago
Oh snap - my rep proposed this bill. Cool!
Ackley 13y ago
Their secret budget will see an increase if this happens...
bjeanes 13y ago
Man, you should put a big "call with Twilio" button right on the page to dial straight out to the representatives then and there.
ndesaulniers 13y ago
Just called my representative! I spoke the receptionist, who was very nice. I told her repeatedly to support Representative Amash's amendment to HR-2397. She requested my full name, zip code, and email address. Happy to help, from Restore the Fourth San Francisco!
- mnemonik 13y ago
  When I called in the first time, I got a busy line. When I called in a second time, I was directed to Nancy Pelosi's voice mail. Hopefully, this means we are flooding the lines!
miga 13y ago
Not sure if this is good idea. Their database may be worth too much on a commercial market, and what if they may be tempted to become self-funding.
Abundnce10 13y ago
I wish there was an email option instead of having to call my congressman.

482 points by sinak 13y ago

I called all three of my listed representatives - the phone was answered almost immediately. It took less than 5 minutes of my time. It may even take you less. It was quite pleasant. Do it now!

jaxbot 13y ago
Agreed. The people you call know exactly what to expect and make it as quick and painless as possible. They're also very pleasant. I'm young and shy but this was probably the easiest social interaction I've ever done. Worth a shot, worth 30 seconds.

s_q_b 13y ago

This won't work. Even if they defund the existing programs, the IC will just change the codenames and move them around between departments, as they did with TIA. The technology will live on. The only way to really end these programs would be a full public debate followed by a statute that outright bans them. Anything less is a PR move.

LoganCale 13y ago
Even if it ultimately doesn't work, don't you think it's worth trying rather than just going around saying it won't work? It's likely going to be a long, slow process to change this, and we need all the wins we can get, if only to prevent apathy and show others who are on the fence that there's enough public outrage over this that they should get involved too. If we do manage to get it passed and then there are new leaks a few years down the road that they did what you describe—move the programs around and keep running them—I think that would cause far greater outrage, because Congress explicitly banned them from continuing the programs and they ignored it.
- s_q_b 13y ago
  No. I don't think it's worth trying. If this is your goal, I think there are far more effective ways to go about it. 1. First, you'll need a political organization that is single-mindedly focused on this one issue. You'll need donors, professional lobbyists, a PR team, and a massive grassroots organization. Think Anti-Saloon League meets Rules for Radicals. 2. Then you focus on one or two elections of prominent politicians. Find someone vulnerable in the Senate. Then find an opponent that will vote against these policies, and win. That will put your group on the map in Washington. 3. Have your newly elected champion propose legislation that addresses policy avenues for which there is already support in Washington. I would focus on two areas: fixing the FISA court, and forming an investigatory committee. Making the FISA court more than a rubber stamp will accomplish many of your goals in the short term. In brief, a few reforms that could go a long way would be the addition of attorneys appointed to oppose the government in motions, fair appointment process, and regularly publishing the findings of law of the court with the fact patterns redacted. Forming an investigatory commission will accomplish your goals in the long term. A top to bottom review of the classified practices of the government, in both public and closed hearings, will bring the information up from the depths of the executive branch. Knowledge will breed more outrage, which will fuel both your political organization and grassroots efforts. If you're successful, the result will look much like the Church Committee. Your ultimate goal should be to statutorily ban the programs, but you won't get there in one step, and certainly won't get close by cutting the funding to a few programs. I'm not saying you shouldn't try, if this is your sincerely held belief. I'm simply saying that playing whack-a-mole with particular programs is a spectacularly ineffective way to pursue your goals.
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    I agree with you that those are all good ways to take action, but I disagree with you that this bill is not worth trying as well. This doesn't target specific NSA programs by name, but amends Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to forbid its use to collect records for people who are not subject to an investigation under that same Section. It's far from an end to domestic surveillance, but it's a significant limitation on the legality of what they're currently doing. Why should we have to elect new people to Congress before taking any further action when we have members of Congress pushing good and legitimate measures already? Should more be done in addition to this? Absolutely. I think it's completely asinine to say that this is a worthless measure, however, and that no one should even try.
abecedarius 13y ago
In politics, partial victories can snowball. And vice versa: repeated loss teaches helplessness. The direct real effect of this would be small, but I'd expect it to be much more useful than a loss. Added: If you read about Watergate, the scandal wasn't any one event or one reaction: it took over two years from the break-in to the resignation, and people weren't sitting still. Some of the important action was in Congress. (Admittedly it was a different country then.)
- s_q_b 13y ago
  This isn't Watergate. There isn't widespread public outrage. If you want to change the policies, you'll need to generate or simulate that outrage first.
  - abecedarius 13y ago
    Watergate made barely a ripple at first, according to Woodward and Bernstein's book. It built up over time.
    - hga 13y ago
      I was politically aware at the time, it was more than a ripple---burglary of the DNC headquarters meant something---but it wasn't big for a long time, and even longer before it became bipartisan. This is the very first (recorded) vote on the issue; even if it were 100% symbolic, which way it goes, how many votes for it will make a difference going forward. And this is bipartisan from the beginning: in a Republican House, an heretofore obscure Republican is the sponsor with the very prominent Democrat John Conyers as the leading co-sponsor.
      - abecedarius 13y ago
        Thanks for the correction. I agree about the significance.

nakedrobot2 13y ago

This is something real, tangible, and valuable that we can all actually do. All of this month I have felt powerless. This is something within everyone's power to do, and it can definitely help start the ball rolling back the way it came. It is pretty unfortunate that there is such a short window of time in which this information can be disseminated. I can imagine if there were a bit more time, this could really spread over the whole Web, as the SOPA outroar did. Anyway, we have to do the best we can, with the time we have.

icantthinkofone 13y ago
Yeah! That'll work! Just like the Occupy movement. Will there be beer?
- toyg 13y ago
  I hope you'll be downvoted to hell. HN should be about constructive criticism. We're all intelligent people, we can all tear down anything we put our mind at, but that doesn't mean that we should, or we wouldn't leave our house every day. I know I'm a cynic and it's a bad habit I'm trying to change, maybe you should try too.
  - jehovahrova 13y ago
    Do you imagine your comment constructive?
    - toyg 13y ago
      If it can prevent the next wiseass from spouting his mouth, yes.
      - jehovahrova 13y ago
        "I hope you'll be downvoted to hell." "I know I'm a cynic and it's a bad habit I'm trying to change, maybe you should try too." You're just an ass hiding his assyness behind false righteousness.

clicks 13y ago

Looks good, is to the point, very convenient -- tells you what to say, who to say it to. Wonderful job guys. I think this is going to be a pretty effective grassroots campaign.

Yuioup 13y ago

I have a question. It's pretty much a safe bet that the NSA runs Open Source Software. You can't do anything on the internet these days without using FLOSS. I'm not an expert in software licenses but can't GNU, Linus, Mozilla and all other Open Source contributers revoke the NSA's license to use their software? Surely Open Source licenses, just like any other license, can be revoked?

rquirk 13y ago
Not likely to happen - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
davidw 13y ago
It's not open source if you specify who can and cannot use it. There was some bit of software years ago that had a clause like "no neonazis may use this software", and it got DQ'ed from Debian because that made it not free software. It's a bit like free speech: you really want to be very, very careful about limiting what people can say.
- johnsoft 13y ago
  That reminds me of this blog post – http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions
random42 13y ago
They they can't. Most (all?) of the opensource licenses do not have the "revokable clause" with them.
- Yuioup 13y ago
  Ok. What happens if GNU decides to Fork the GPL v3 and call it "GPLv3+NSA Exception" and then relicense all their code to this new forked license? A clause in this forked license is that the NSA can't use it.

snitko 13y ago

I think this is fighting the symptom rather than the cause. NSA is a symptom of a much larger problem, which is taxes. If you didn't have them, you wouldn't have to demand those things in the first place, because all the money you'd give would be given voluntarily and to organizations that you choose and think are important.

unimpressive 13y ago
>which is taxes Let's start with the possible, shall we?
- snitko 13y ago
  I agree. Let's use Bitcoin. It's possible right here today and you don't give anyone a cut.
czr80 13y ago
So, let me get this straight: we abolish taxes, eliminate governments, and then ... paradise?
- snitko 13y ago
  It depends on how you define paradise. If paradise is the same as now, but without massively killing population of foreign countries with drones, keeping people in prison without trial and massively spying on your own people, then yes, it's going to be paradise. If your question is whether we can still have a civilized, stable and prosperous society, ask yourself would the demand for the good things that are currently provided by the government go? Would people still need roads and fire protection and security?
  - falk 13y ago
    It's been working pretty well for Somalia I hear.
  - unimpressive 13y ago

rb2e 13y ago

The NSA is the heart of the intelligence gathering apparatus of the US Military Industrial Complex. Like it or not, this bill will pass either tomorrow or another day, tacked on to another bill. It is strategic to the military and the country. There is no way in hell, this bill will not pass. You can scream, occupy the streets, protest, do whatever but it will not change a thing. It will go through. The US military Industrial Complex is vast. It lobby’s hard. To vote against it is to be called “un-American”- you know its BS but the talking heads will say it. Its powerful but that isn’t the point of this post. Truthfully, our governments have been spying on us for a long time. My country, the UK was reading the mail and telegrams long before the US. Then it was listening and recording phone calls. This is just a step up. As technology increased capabilities, the net has grown wider. From ECHELON to this. Civil liberties does not mean anything to them as the mindset has stayed the same no matter how much you may scream or complain, realistically it will not change a thing because at the end of the day, the country will have enemies and it needs an intelligence gathering capability. It won’t give a damn about our rights as it tries to secure itself.

infinity0 13y ago
Your post accomplishes nothing except to persuade people to give up the fight for civil liberties. You propose no solution or do you give any additional insight into developing a solution. Regardless of your actual intentions, you might as well be performing psychological propaganda. It's not helpful.
- rb2e 13y ago
  No offence is taken. I've been reading and studying Intelligence/espionage for a long time. Not the fancy James Bond stuff, just the boring average, mundane stuff of the past 100 years. I offer no solution because quite frankly, there isn't one. Unless you want to shut down the US military's and civilian intelligence gathering capabilities, it's not going to happen. There will always be reading your mail and listening in to your phonecalls. It is not going to stop. I am not for this, I love my privacy but I am simply pointing out what will happen, regardless of any action taken.

johnpowell 13y ago

We elected Bush in 2004 when he had Tom Ridge upping the terror alert every week before the election. It never seemed to go down. But it always managed to go up to red every week. I think we have hit the point that you can't really roll anything back. If you do and 9/11 v.2.0 happens you are politically screwed. And, unfortunately, it is all about the next election and soccer moms.

falk 13y ago
"We elected Bush in 2004 when he had Tom Ridge upping the terror alert every week before the election." You hit the nail right on the head. The problem in America isn't the politicians, it's the people.
- Ackley 13y ago
  If Obama would do what he promised he would do, we would be in a better situation right now (about the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, etc..)
  - johnpowell 13y ago
    I do honestly believe that he wanted to do the right thing. But once he got more info he had to change his mind. For all I know they prevent 1 attack per week. I have no clue. So I think we need to have the security verses privacy debate. If the country is like my sister she thinks she doesn't do anything and will pick security every time. She has three kids that love soccer.

sinak 13y ago

Just a quick note to add that this was built over the course of 5 hours by four developers as part of http://taskforce.is http://taskforce.is, which was pretty much assembled here on Hacker News. Please take a few minutes to call. It's amazing how low conversion rates are on calling campaigns like this one - a factor of 100 lower than email asks - but this is really critical. We only have one day to make this happen. If you're interested in helping with campaigns like this in the future, you can sign up here: http://sina.is/rritf.html http://sina.is/rritf.html A big thanks to Thomas Davis, Jens Nockert, and Beau Gunderson for building the site.

andyakb 13y ago
I would strongly recommend including an auto email form. Maybe not as powerful as a phone calll, but conversions will be much higher
- jlgaddis 13y ago
  "Form e-mails" to representatives are pretty much completely ignored, as I understand it. Does it really matter if "x" percent converted if it has zero effect anyway?
triplepoint217 13y ago
I just called. A feature that would be really nice: A way for me to give them my email address and zip code and then get an email when vote results are posted with how my Representative voted.
- Hario 13y ago
  That's a really good idea.
MorningInfidel 13y ago
Best of luck and god speed with this initiative. Were I a US citizen, I would be calling my representative.

sebkomianos 13y ago

Do we really believe that "a vote" can change such things? Do we really believe that we can avoid such situations (= non-transparent governments) within the current system? I mean, when did you actually vote FOR the NSA funding in the first place so that you can now believe that you can defund it by voting against?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

MisterWebz 13y ago
> remember that threats from the US are the only thing that prevents many countries from doing more horrible shit than they already do. You mean horrible shit like drone strikes that kill innocent civilians, illegally detaining "terrorists" and torturing them, spying on the whole world, and commanding other countries to ground a president's plane? Is that the kind of shit "they" already do?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- joyeuse6701 13y ago
  Nah bro they target civilians and blow them up en masse. If you had to pick the lesser of two evils, the answer is pretty clear I think.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    I guess 100+ plus drone strikes y/y with civillian casualties isn't en masse? Wasn't there a drone strike that killed over a hundred women and children at a school in pakistan? And lets not forget Falujah. It was pretty much turned into Depleted Urainium wasteland... and theres a WHO report on that. Sounds like those evils are brothers...
    - joyeuse6701 13y ago
      Suppose a Drone killed 3000 civilians with the intention of killing civilians (like Dresden or Tokyo bombings of WWII) then I'd say yeah, they're siblings but: Nah, civilians are collateral damage for drones, the goal was not to kill as many of them as possible and terrorize them. It was to eliminate particular individuals, so no it's not en masse. If we take your 100 women and children (heh, nice) and say they were without a doubt killed by a drone and were killed intentionally as a target by the drones I would say: You're still off by an order of cardinality in comparison. So that's a bad comparison too. Falujah, where there was a battle and there were actual enemy combatants in a stronghold city and you're complaining about the depleted uranium after the fact? Sure you could remove context to everything and you'll get exactly what you're saying: Drivel. A WHO report? So? That assertion alone is supposed to do what, reinforce how deplorable Falujah is on account of the weapons used? Tell ya what when you're in charge of arming your soldiers of your nation and someone says: "you can use depleted uranium to penetrate the armor of your enemies but it'll have negative effect on the environment, or you can use just lead with negligible armor piercing and minimal comparative environmental effect." You can pick the environmental choice and tell the dead parents and the dying soldiers you're responsible for that you didn't want to pick armor piercing rounds because you were trying to protect the future flora and fauna of a foreign land you don't have sovereignty over. Or you could tell them that you did everything in your power to do your job and service to the nation and it's people in arming the soldiers under your command and that the integrity of the environment of a city in Iraq was secondary to your concern over American lives.

Dr_chaos 13y ago

LOL Fools You know that the CIA run most of the drugs in and out of the great US. You know that they have massive surplus cash? Like so big they don't really know what to do with it These 'government' bodies can and will exist without government. This is how they fund most if not all their black ops, that way nothing needs to be on the books. if we stopped public money, I doubt it would even make a dent

falk 13y ago
This may sound farfetched, but it's not. If you're interested in learning more about the CIA and drugs, I recommend the following: - The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade by Alfred W. McCoy [1] - Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press by Alexander Cockburn [2] - Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond by Martin A. Lee [3] [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global/dp/1556524838/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global/... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Whiteout-The-CIA-Drugs-Press/dp/1859848974/ http://www.amazon.com/Whiteout-The-CIA-Drugs-Press/dp/185984... [3] http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Dreams-Complete-History-Sixties/dp/0802130623/ http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Dreams-Complete-History-Sixties/d...
grabhive 13y ago
I'm glad to see someone else pointing this out. I did so myself here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6089979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6089979 I want so suggest however, that you follow my lead in taking a sternly honest but less antagonistic approach to the topic. This reality implies a complete breakdown of democracy, which is terrifying. And while it may be true, we won't get far calling each other "fools", even if the effort is impotent. Still, let me reiterate that I'm very glad you said it.

vaadu 13y ago

"The bill gives taxpayer money to fund defense programs, including NSA surveillance." Why does it take money to defund an operation? Doesn't "defund" mean to not allocate money for. Obama says he will veto. So what? If no money is allocated for said programs where is the budget for them coming from? These NSA programs are only the tip of the iceberg of intrusions. <a href="The http://www.govexec.com/technology/2013/04/consumer-bureau-defends-data-collecting/62730/">Consumer http://www.govexec.com/technology/2013/04/consumer-bureau-de... Credit Bureau</a> collects all financial data on US citizens and obamacare will be collecting and sharing everything medical with numerous federal agencies.

mtgx 13y ago

In theory it sounds nice, but how many black ops and secret budgets already exist? "Defunding the NSA", will just mean its "official" budget will be cut, and under everyone's noses, they will keep being funded through secret budgets. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen - eventually - but first the priority should be to repeal the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, and end the secret FISA Court, or at least overhaul it in such a way that it's public, judges get elected in a much more democratic way than simply having one person naming them, as it is right now, and allow adversarial hearings, and for people to be able to use FOIA against this sort of spying. If it's done on an American citizen (under a proper warrant - and not en masse), then that citizen should be able to request a FOIA for it, and get an almost completely unredacted document. If there's an investigation done on him currently, then at most he can get a few months delay, to a year. After that everyone should be able to use FOIA to get these documents.

dfc 13y ago

Didn't congress say no to funding the stealth MH-60 SOF variant and later see tail rotor of a stealth MH-60 SOF variant in someone's backyard in Abbottabad?

mpyne 13y ago
I think you're thinking of the Comanche helo. There's absolutely zero chance IMHO that Congress actually went out of their way to de-fund a fancy SOF toy.
- dfc 13y ago
  I am almost positive it was the MH60. If my memory is correct: Congress did not defund it, they just did not authorize the funds to go forward with the plans to build a stealth MH60 SOF. Upon hearing the news the CIA said fuck it we have some black budget money we will pay for it. The next time congress heard about the program was news reports about a tail rotor from a stealth chopper in some guys yard in Abbottabad.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

No, no, a thousand times no. Hey, I'm the biggest fan of anonymity and privacy you can find. This is not an answer. It's an emotional over-reaction. Countries need intelligence agencies -- they are the best way NOT to fight future wars. SIGINT is a useful function when used against foreign leaders. It's just a terrible idea when used against the population as a whole. Separate the parts that work and are useful from the parts that are destroying the country. Just don't lump it all together. Unilaterally disarming is not a way forward. The only thing you accomplish by doing that is allowing dozens of other countries to spy on you without your knowledge. How is that a solution? These movements are in real danger of becoming "useful idiots" for others who wish us harm [1] The only solution here is parity, i.e., whatever blanket surveillance is going on by corporations and the government regarding every citizen should be available to all citizens. This policy would naturally severely limit these kinds of operations without asking us to make broad decisions about delicate matters. If you insist on defunding something, de-fund and kill the TSA. Then eliminate DHS and have the work go back to the separate agencies. But don't take a flamethrower to something which has a useful, important purpose because the politicians changed their mission to something terrible. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

andyakb 13y ago
Read the website. Despite the name, it is not about defunding the entire nsa, but instead about removing the authorization and funding for blanket data collection
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  You understand that my argument was not against all blanket data collection by the NSA, right? In many cases it might still work. That's the entire point: this issue does not reduce to simple answers, only shared values that can then discuss depending on the particular situation. Address-to-address SIGiNT, two hops out, with only the address and time? I might could get behind that -- as long as I had that data also. This discussion is not about surveillance. We are going to have that anyway. All this does is give it to every other country but us. This discussion is about priviledge -- who gets access to what? Apologies for reaction to the link bait title, but that doesn't change the point I'm making.

coldcode 13y ago

The best way to rein in the NSA is make it difficult or impossible for it to find and hire employees and contractors. Without people it cannot function.

sauravt 13y ago

I was shocked for a while, since I read it as defendthensa.

spaznode 13y ago

Makes sense hn would too vote such a stupid idea. If it didn't exist already something like it would have to be created.

Zigurd 13y ago
The Soviet Union went out of business in 1991. Why do we still have a mechanism that was built to target a closed totalitarian system armed with 20 megaton hydrogen bombs? The NSA is out of date and out of place.
- spaznode 13y ago
  =) This assumes you have correctly defined what"it" is and does? Or what current is? Current isn't on tv.

brown9-2 13y ago

Instead of voting to block funding for programs, why not repeal the laws that enable those programs in the first place? I don't understand this logic.

glesica 13y ago
Because that would be a concrete step that would actually change something and would be a clear signal as to how each representative stands on the issue of unlimited domestic surveillance.
mcherm 13y ago
The laws do NOT enable the programs. The laws had specific clauses stating that they could not be used for this sort of widespread surveillance of innocent citizens. But the administration has an "interpretation" of the laws which apparently is at odds with the plain text of the law. I can't say HOW they came by this interpretation, because the interpretation of the law is secret. (Yeah... really.) So maybe the power of the purse will still be effective. We can hope.
- brown9-2 13y ago
  Or Congress could pass new laws that remove any ambiguity that allows for a different "interpretation" than what was intended.
  - siddboots 13y ago
    Even so, they are doing it this way because it is a late amendment to the directly related Defense Appropriations Bill. They can hardly stick clarifications to the Patriot Act on to it. It would be great to "treat the cause, not the symptoms", but they didn't have the immediate opportunity to do that.
perlpimp 13y ago
How can you repeal secret laws? There were report so secret laws and secret interpretations being used for 'justification' of unconstitutional activities.

culshaw 13y ago

Remove the funding and they will get it from elsewhere; that 50 years worth of data just became market research.

mcherm 13y ago

Important point: (This point was made clear in the actual page, but some of the comments suggest that not everyone understood it.) The title to this posting (and the name of the website) are misleading. This is not a proposal to block funding for the NSA. And that's good, because such a proposal would have NO chance of passing, and would probably be a bad idea anyhow. Instead, this is a proposal to block funding for NSA collecting records on American citizens that are not being investigated. Which is a much more reasonable position.

sneak 13y ago
Unfortunately, even if NSA stopped all domestic spying, the fact that they have programs like PRISM that silently turn any US company into a snitch for the US military means that the US internet industry has suffered an irreparable blow. Obama getting on national TV and saying "we only target foreign entities" is the worst possible thing that could have happened. Even if all of this stuff works, the spying on foreigners via compelling US service providers to wiretap them is sufficient to end the internet industry in the USA as we know it.
- LoganCale 13y ago
  It should be banning surveillance of anyone not under active investigation, not simply domestically.
  - meepmorp 13y ago
    Why? Persons who are not US citizens who are not on US territory aren't given protections under our constitution. What's the reasoning behind this? Surveillance serves a national interest for the US, and while there ought to be limitations for domestic surveillance, I don't see why those ought to exist for foreigners in other countries.
    - calt 13y ago
      Sneak is speaking specifically about the impact on the US IT industry. As an American IT worker, I agree. "Not subject to US jurisdiction" is becoming a feature.

snsr 13y ago

More info - http://rules.house.gov/bill/hr-2397 http://rules.house.gov/bill/hr-2397 Amendment #100

grabhive 13y ago

Nearly everything that the NSA does is Top Secret, so can we claim to know anything about its activities? Why do we believe that we have the power to defund it, when we don't actually know where it gets its money, or how much it receives? Are posters here aware that the CIA has long been accused of being involved in the global drug trade, as a means of self-financing and leveraging power? Despite the recent revelations having vindicated the world's tin-foil-hats, we still seem to collectively lack the stomach for darker conspiratorial notions. To be in step with reality, it may be important to build up a bit of tolerance. I'm not making any claims (because I just don't know), but I see absolutely no reason to assume that democratic process applies to these agencies. They may have gone rogue; they may have always been rogue. Their global network may be the actual, de-facto world government. Would it really surprise anyone at this point if a convincing leak exposed such notions? What would we do then? Let's stop imagining that Law will take care of this problem so we can at least assume a proper direction for our efforts. Which is to say, let's dispense with some of our convenience and fashions and start writing software the right way -- the paranoid way. To quote the eternal R. Buckminster Fuller: "In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete."

dsschnau 13y ago

Oh snap - my rep proposed this bill. Cool!

Ackley 13y ago

Their secret budget will see an increase if this happens...

bjeanes 13y ago

Man, you should put a big "call with Twilio" button right on the page to dial straight out to the representatives then and there.

ndesaulniers 13y ago

Just called my representative! I spoke the receptionist, who was very nice. I told her repeatedly to support Representative Amash's amendment to HR-2397. She requested my full name, zip code, and email address. Happy to help, from Restore the Fourth San Francisco!

mnemonik 13y ago
When I called in the first time, I got a busy line. When I called in a second time, I was directed to Nancy Pelosi's voice mail. Hopefully, this means we are flooding the lines!

miga 13y ago

Not sure if this is good idea. Their database may be worth too much on a commercial market, and what if they may be tempted to become self-funding.

Abundnce10 13y ago

I wish there was an email option instead of having to call my congressman.