4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - s_q_b 13y ago
      Amending 215 isn't much good with FISA 702 collection methods still in place, so yes, this bill is useless. You need new elected representatives because thus far no representative in any election in any district has ever lost an election over this surveillance. Unless and until that happens, the massive forces arrayed against you will sway the votes every time. This movement lacks support, funding, vision, and credibility. It is at best a placebo that bleeds public motivation, so in many ways it is in fact worse than useless.
      - LoganCale 13y ago
        215 and 702 do different things. It is misleading to say that limiting 215 is pointless because 702 is still in place. Yes, both should be limited. But limiting one as a start is better than limiting nothing. The NSA director has called a classified emergency briefing for Congress to lobby against them voting on this bill, so they seem more troubled by it passing than you do. Which makes me wonder what your true intent is in encouraging people to not support this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/23/keith-alexander-justin-amash_n_3639329.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/23/keith-alexander-jus...
        s_q_b 13y ago
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.

by s_q_b 13y ago

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.
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    Amending 215 isn't much good with FISA 702 collection methods still in place, so yes, this bill is useless. You need new elected representatives because thus far no representative in any election in any district has ever lost an election over this surveillance. Unless and until that happens, the massive forces arrayed against you will sway the votes every time. This movement lacks support, funding, vision, and credibility. It is at best a placebo that bleeds public motivation, so in many ways it is in fact worse than useless.
    - LoganCale 13y ago
      215 and 702 do different things. It is misleading to say that limiting 215 is pointless because 702 is still in place. Yes, both should be limited. But limiting one as a start is better than limiting nothing. The NSA director has called a classified emergency briefing for Congress to lobby against them voting on this bill, so they seem more troubled by it passing than you do. Which makes me wonder what your true intent is in encouraging people to not support this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/23/keith-alexander-justin-amash_n_3639329.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/23/keith-alexander-jus...
      - s_q_b 13y ago

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.