10 ms·

Amash’s Amendment To Defund NSA Program Fails 205-217

291 points by llamataboot 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
livestyle 13y ago
Would be interested in a consolidated list names of those who voted in favor and against this bill.
- dlg 13y ago
  It's not available yet, but will be posted first at http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2013&rollnumber=412&TB_iframe=true&height=400&width=650 http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2013&rollnumber... SF HNers: Rep. Pelosi was against the ammendment.
  - gonzo 13y ago
    so vote her out.
    - flyt 13y ago
      Good luck with that, she is an incumbent and incumbents have a greater than 90% reelection rate. All of her primary challengers have been total nuts like Cindy Sheehan in the past, and she easily coasts to victory every two years.
      - igravious 13y ago
        Ah you must mean that nutbag Cindy Sheehan whose son was killed during the ill-judged invasion/occupation of Iraq. "Near the end of his active service, the U.S. invasion of Iraq began. [Casey] Sheehan reenlisted, knowing that his unit would be sent there.[5] Sheehan's division, the First Cavalry Division, was sent to Iraq. On March 19, 2004, Sheehan's Battery C, 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, arrived at FOB Camp War Eagle in Sadr City. On April 4, 2004, Sheehan was killed in action after volunteering to be part of a Quick Reaction Force to rescue American troops." She then goes on to become a vocal critic of the previous and current admin. She becomes an antiwar activist.
        flyt 13y ago
        I don't doubt that she has conviction, but I question her ability to be an effective advocate in Congress compared to the (then) Speaker of the House.
      - WildUtah 13y ago
        Maybe Ro Khanna will move over and run against her! Seriously, though, Swalwell proved that it can be done. Get somebody serious to run against her. I know I always relished voting against her when I lived in SF even though I had to hold my nose and vote Republican.
      - ajays 13y ago
        > incumbents have a greater than 90% reelection rate Which is mind-boggling, considering that the Congress' approval rating is 12% ! Thing about it: only 12% of the people think that the Congress is doing a good job, and these people STILL get re-elected! Is it any wonder that we're in this mess? http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/07/24/obama-congress-nbc-wall-street-journal-poll/2581993/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/07/24/obama-congr...
        mjn 13y ago
        That's Congress's general approval rating, when you ask someone to nonspecifically rate "Congress". When you ask them to rate their own specific Congressperson (which is who they can vote for or against), approval averages around 45-50%, and rises to 60% among people who actually know the Representative's name [1]. So the average American strongly dislikes Representatives from other districts, but is okay with their own. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-own-representative.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-ow...
  - benihana 13y ago
    SF HNers: Rep. Pelosi was against the ammendment. Surprising no one.
  - jcdavis 13y ago
    Its worth noting that from my quick glance, she was the only Bay Area congressperson to vote No. Incredibly disappointed
    - _delirium 13y ago
      Depends on what you count as the Bay Area, but here's a tally for a sort of extended version of it: CA-2: Huffman (D), yes CA-3: Garamendi (D), yes CA-5: Thompson (D), no CA-11: Miller (D), yes CA-12: Pelosi (D), no CA-13: Lee (D), yes CA-14: Speier (D), yes CA-15: Swalwell (D), yes CA-17: Honda (D), yes CA-18: Eshoo (D), yes CA-19: Lofgren (D), yes CA-20: Farr (D), yes So 10/12 of the Bay Area voted yes, rather disproportionately in favor compared to the nationwide vote. Until putting together this list, I hadn't actually realized there are no Republicans in the entire extended Bay Area, incidentally. You have to go all the way to Modesto to find a GOP Congressman (in CA-10, where Denham voted "no").
    - ajays 13y ago
      Because the SF people vote her in like sheep, again and again. She knows her seat is not threatened, so she'll vote in her _own_ interests. I refuse to vote for her. I'll vote for the Republican challenger every time.
      - bodyfour 13y ago
        Or, perhaps a little less cynically: she's the minority leader so she's expected to vote in the party's interest. When your party holds the White House that basically means supporting the administration. I don't mean this as a defense of Pelosi though. I'm also in CA-12; I usually just abstain from voting for US Rep.
- unimpressive 13y ago
  I would be interested in knowing where I can find this sort of information in general.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - svachalek 13y ago
    govtrack.us generally has this info although I don't think this particular vote is posted yet.
  - emhart 13y ago
    Senate: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_m... House: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp
  - hga 13y ago
    Look later (today or definitely tomorrow) at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php ; click on Bill Number, enter H.R. 2397 (periods are necessary), click on the correct search result. For this particular amendment and vote, go to the lower right corner where there's "All Congressional Actions with Amendments".
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    here's raw if the links posted by others are 404ing for you: https://gist.github.com/beaugunderson/6075673 https://gist.github.com/beaugunderson/6075673
- clarkm 13y ago
  Here is the roll call with a map from the NYT: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412 http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412 Not only did the vote fail to break along party lines, it didn't break along geographic lines either. Outside of the Bay Area, I don't see any obvious patterns, like an urban / rural split. Does anyone see anything else?
  - mturmon 13y ago
    Good question. It's more muddled than typical votes. If you take the party line (Dems favored the amendment, Reps disfavored) as a baseline, you have to explain two things: solid red (R's who voted Yes) and striped blue (D's who voted No). So, the regional delta's on that baseline: (1) the Western states (Montana down to New Mexico) had plenty of Republican votes for (solid red); (2) the DC-NY area had more Dem votes against (striped blue). The standard explanation of (1) would be libertarian Westerners, and for (2) would be, that was where 9/11 was, plus that's where much of the intelligence community lives. If you're in the government, you may trust the government more. I don't know how to explain the consistent voting of Tennessee and South Carolina.
    - ars 13y ago
      I don't think you can take that party line as a baseline. The president is democrat and is for it - democrat congressmen would have to notice that. But they didn't. I think this issue simply has no party division, it.s each person with their own opinion. (If only all politics could be like that.)
      - mturmon 13y ago
        Sure, each congressperson has their own opinion. But this observation provides no explanatory power. As others have said, one crude characterization of D/R split is that R is generally more supportive of spending for national security. I think this provides the ideological basis for the D/R split. The interests of the President are not aligned with those of Congress in this case: the President is a consumer of the intel. This is why the D's in Congress did not follow him. Additionally, I suspect that Congresspersons have noticed that their constituents are getting restless about intel collection. Obama doesn't have to run for election again, but they do. As an observer of politics, I too find this vote very interesting.
kristopolous 13y ago
I'm knowingly paying an organization to openly wage cyber warfare and espionage operations on me? Splendid. At least we may get a few good HPC and IR publications out of it. Actually, it will probably be outsourced to contractors who will squander it away without producing anything. Unless, that is, the next 9/11 gets planned using twitter hashtags. Actually, since the Sandy Hook shooter openly talked about his plans on 4chan, I'm guessing that even a twitter campaign would still "pass under the radar". I bet the only real consequence is that someone will lose a laptop with like, everybody's social security number and financial history on it. It's going to be so awesome.
- marshray 13y ago
  Clarify acronyms please?
  - Zircom 13y ago
    From what Wikipedia can tell me, the two most relevant terms those acronyms refer too are "High-performance computing" and "Information retrieval".
    - marshray 13y ago
      That makes sense. I was thinking maybe "Incident Response" :-)
- unimpressive 13y ago
  > Actually, given that the Sandy Hook shooter openly talked about his plans on 4chan, I'm guessing that even that would still "pass under the radar". Hoax? http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/415935/20121217/sandy-hook-newtown-connecticut-adam-lanza.htm http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/415935/20121217/sandy-hook...
  - kristopolous 13y ago
    ok fine. Gabriel Giffords shooter posted pictures and details on his MySpace profile prior to the assassination attempt. And for people like Colleen LaRose or the Underwear bomber, just a web browser and plain-old internet led to the apprehension. With Michael Reynolds, traditional "law enforcement officers posing as honeypots" style did the trick. These classical methods seem to be working quite alright. What is the use-case here? Some dastardly secret terrorist conspiracy where they collaboratively make detailed plans, over the internet, in clear text, like this: ----- From: evilbomber@yahoo.com Subject: Re: RE: re: re: Re: Secret plans To: confidant@not-the-fbi.com CC: coconspirator@gmail.com, evildoer2213@excite.com, bombmaker@msn.com Attachments: annotated-map.pdf ---- Hey all, After reviewing the bombing plans of the terrorist attack next Tuesday, set for Washington DC, when the Secretary of State, Jon Carey, is set to arrive by motorcade at 4:15 PM, I've decided that our assassination attempt (where we plan to Kill Jon Carey) would be best suited for a different intersection. As you can see here, there is a better place to bomb the motorcade. Also, I've gotten all the parts for the IED. This includes the incendiary, a timer, and all the wiring necessary. I carefully asked a bunch of questions on various open forums and posted pictures to confirm I made everything right. I also disclosed my intended use of the bombs along with my radical political leanings. Anyway, Down with the USA, and I hope to meet all of you to make this death of a US diplomat a reality, next Tuesday, at 4:15 PM. Patiently Awaiting Martyrdom, evilbomber. P.S.: What's encryption?
tptacek 13y ago
Copied from the other thread, because it bears repeating: I think it's important to keep in mind that the 12 vote margin is comfortable for Amash and supporters of new NSA restrictions and uncomfortable for its defenders. Here's why: opponents of Amash wielded an argument that "split the vote". Representatives who voted against Amash could have done so for one of two reasons: (1) They actively support providing the NSA with unchecked access to cell phone metadata under the "business records" provision of PATRIOT, or (2) They don't support that access, but can't support a broad amendment that potentially de-funds whole NSA programs, and instead need something finer grained to correct NSA with. Meanwhile, everyone who supported Amash believes strongly --- so strongly that they're willing to do something disruptive to NSA --- that new checks on NSA are needed. (I think Amash was a good amendment, if only because it would force the House to do its actual job and carefully regulate intelligence collection; if it caused a temporary shitstorm, so much the better --- it'd be a well-deserved comeuppance for a legislature that has been derelict in its duty to oversee these programs. But you should be aware that opponents of Amash had a persuasive-sounding argument for voting it down even if you believed new regulations were needed.) I think this was a pretty hopeful vote.
- llamataboot 13y ago
  agreed, especially how quickly it came together and how hard the Dem establishment came down on it. I hope that this is the seed for a strongly bi-partisan group of legislators concerned about civil liberties.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    especially how quickly it came together There was some great coverage of this on the BBC[1] earlier today, before the result was known: (Quotation begins) However, the White House said the measure would deprive the intelligence agencies of a key tool in preventing terror attacks. "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open or deliberative process," said spokesman Jay Carney. (Quotation ends) [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126 (emphasis added)
pawrvx 13y ago
Now you know who runs America.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  Right, the ones we cannot criticize...
  - pawrvx 13y ago
    The downvotes just proves my point.
darkmethod 13y ago
Is this the will of the people?
- paraxisi 13y ago
  Not yet, but it's getting closer.
  - meepmorp 13y ago
    Don't assume you're privy to the will of the people.
    - paraxisi 13y ago
      With >50% regularly in polls, I'd say it's a fairly safe bet.
      - meepmorp 13y ago
        Have a look at this poll by WashPost/ABC: http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1150a3SnowdenandSecurity.pdf http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1150a3SnowdenandSecuri... A majority of those surveyed now think Snowden should be criminally charged for his leaking and don't view the surveillance as an unjustified intrusion into people's privacy; interestingly, more people thought it wasn't an unjustified intrusion into their own privacy vs. the privacy of others. It's just one poll, yeah, but don't assume you know the will of the people.
        subsection1h 13y ago
        Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the poll you linked to, the question that's most relevant to Amash's amendment was the following: 17. Do you think that the National Security Agency's surveillance of telephone call records and internet traffic does or does not intrude on some Americans' privacy rights? Does Intrude: 74% Does Not Intrude: 22% No Opinion: 4%
lettergram 13y ago
Republican: 94 yea 134 Nay Democratic: 111 yea 83 Nay Pretty close and party lines didn't seem all that important.
- protomyth 13y ago
  Some of the Republicans were probably swayed by the Heritage Foundation's critique of the amendment's wording. This is the type of issue that won't be a party line vote, but I would be curious about an age breakdown.
- marcamillion 13y ago
  This surprised me too - especially given the rhetoric I was hearing from the lamestream media about this vote being cast along party lines. Given that the majority of Dems in the house voted for it - in fact more than Republicans - I think that is a MAJOR, MAJOR rebuke to Obama. I am sure he will notice that.
altero 13y ago
I think this is the end of the cloud. For me (as european) it is now unacceptable to use american webservices and remote apps. We had a good run.
- hga 13y ago
  Give it a little while. This is the very first time this issue has come up for a vote post-Snowden, it's also in the summer when plenty of people are not paying all that much attention to this sort of thing (vacations and such). This vote has demonstrated a really serious intent to change things, and there's a good chance they will be in due course.
  - altero 13y ago
    All discusion so far has been about spying on US citizen. EU citizens have zero rights in this case.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  For me (as european) it is now unacceptable to use american webservices and remote apps. As someone running businesses in Europe, I am genuinely concerned about whether the Safe Harbor scheme still protects us legally if we allow US-based services to use personal data about our customers. As I understand it, the point of Safe Harbor is to recognise that some US-based companies have data protection measures sufficient to meet the stronger European standards, and therefore to permit the export of such personal data outside the EEA to those trusted partners where this would otherwise be against the law. Given that the protection that any US-based partner can offer is now known to be limited, and that no-one running a business here could credibly claim not to be aware of that, I don't know where we'd stand legally if a politically active customer decided to make a point. Even if we openly disclose which US-based partners are involved as part of the relevant privacy policy, it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
  - altero 13y ago
    It already started. Irish Google has been sued recently for sharing data with american mothership.
KevinEldon 13y ago
Your representative is probably on Twitter. If you've got an account tweet how they voted and what you think about it. Be polite. You can of course email and call them too to share you viewpoint. Find your Representative - http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ Amash vote - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml
- kbd 13y ago
  Thanks for the links! I learned who my representative was and sent him a respectful e-mail inquiring about his nay vote.
- tnorthcutt 13y ago
  Thank you, just did this. My rep (Bill Flores) voted "no".
- bargl 13y ago
  I think this should be higher. I also found my representative and said thank you for supporting the bill. And thank you for posting the links.
pvnick 13y ago
Twelve votes? That's it? Wow, that's incredible. The first real tide change we've seen since the passage of the patriot act. Those who voted Nay seemed to do so because "metadata isn't covered under the 4th amendment." Wait until they find out the NSA is raking in the call contents too [1] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa-cell-phone-calls_n_3520424.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa...
BashiBazouk 13y ago
If this is to be fought the time is close at hand. First off if this is played as a left vs right issue it will lose. Second this needs to be won at the primary level. If both the democrat and the republican in a district/state are against it, then it doesn't really matter who wins as far as this issue is concerned. Bonus points if when the debates start, instead of opposite sides of the issue, they try to one up each other on how they will dismantle the surveillance state. I think asking your Representative their stand on this issue as well as any one else who enters the race is a good start but also try to get some sort of pledge that they will work across the isle with the other party to get this done. This will need at least two election cycles to be successful. Everyone in the house is up for re-election every two years but the senate requires six for everyone to go through the re-election process. I think with some luck, the third senate election cycle might not be needed if enough momentum can be attained. But I think to really succeed it will have to survive a filibuster and possibly a presidential veto. We can do this if we are willing to put aside our political differences, work together and think long term.
guelo 13y ago
If congress were to pass some law (over Obama's veto) limiting the intelligence agencies, what is to stop the administration from coming up with a secret interpretation of the new law that effectively ignored it? They are already in violation of current law, as the author of the Patriot Act has stated. Democracy has been completely subverted at this point. We need impeachments and new anti-secrecy laws.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Nothing, but good luck claiming victories achieved under an illegal interpretation (see: Iran-Contra).
- krapp 13y ago
  If you don't trust the government to follow the law in the former case, why would you trust them to follow anti-secrecy laws in the latter? Either the system can possibly work or it can't, you can't say the process is a sham then suggest a legislative solution.
marcamillion 13y ago
Even though I don't have the time to do it, I have a feeling that if you drilled down into the votes some more, you would likely see a pattern/relationship re: authority. i.e. those in higher authority would have voted it down (Boehner, Pelosi, etc.) and those with less authority supported it. So the powerful preserving their power, with the less powerful challenging it. That alone can speak volumes about the potential for their power crumbling. Boehner has been on the ropes recently with his caucus warning him to tread carefully. If that turns out to be the case, then the leadership has big problems. Both in the House and the Whitehouse. That could be good for the issue over the long-term....which is encouraging to me as a "foreigner".
- ars 13y ago
  If you're going come up with an interesting theory like that you almost have an obligation to track it down definitely. Otherwise you're just making an assumption, and drawing conclusions from it without knowing if your assumption is right.
  - marcamillion 13y ago
    I know the feeling, but I figured I would just put it out there and let people more versed at this stuff than I find the relationships, if any exist and let us know.
    - ars 13y ago
      > and let people ...let us know. That virtually never happens. You have to do the work yourself.
D9u 13y ago
The bit about "...not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process" illustrates the hypocrisy inherent to the ruling class. They rarely hold themselves to the same standards which they set forth for the proletariat.
s_q_b 13y ago
Repost from another thread on the same issue: I really do commend everyone involved in this effort. This is how the system is supposed to work, citizens making their voices know, and the legislature acting upon the will of the people. Honestly you guys got far closer to your goal than I would have anticipated. The bipartison support was almost unprecedented in recent years. From a practical matter, even if the House bill passed it was dead on arrival in the Senate. But nevertheless it is a significant symbolic blow to blank surveillance against American citizens. All I've tried to communicate, perhaps with less than appropriate tact, is that this is going to be a long slog. If you're going to reign in the surveillance state, you'll need to start thinking like Washington insiders. Pick one incumbent that vocally supported these programs, and take him or her down. That will instantly catapult this issue to the top of the concerns in DC. It only costs a few million to get that done. Considering the wealth of the tech industry, and the threat this poses to overseas expansion of the US internet services, donations shouldn't be overly difficult to drum up. We could really make a large dent in getting the legislature to help roll back these programs to sane levels. Add to that an anit-SOPA style social media campaign, and you could accomplish real and lasting change.
coldcode 13y ago
The tool who represents my district actually voted AYE. Maybe there is hope for this body of morons.
tzs 13y ago
The votes from members of the Permanent House Select Committee on Intelligence were 2 yes, 21 no. By party, that was among Democrats 2 yes, 8 no, and among Republicans 0 yes, 13 no.
tlongren 13y ago
I read the title as "Amish's Amendment". Wondering what the Amish did to illicit such attention from the NSA.
- krapp 13y ago
  Well, they are practically untrackable under the current surveillance architecture, and they do have those strange beards...
pteredactyl 13y ago
Maybe its a Spectacle for hegelDialectic/divideConquer #pov
llamataboot 13y ago
I am wondering why we didn't see a /single/ large tech company release something in support of this. Even something as simple as a press release...
evolve2k 13y ago
Which way did Obama himself vote?
- pawn 13y ago
  He didn't have to, because it didn't pass the House. However, he's been vocally supporting spying, so it's assumed he would have voted No on this bill.
rdl 13y ago
It's really interesting looking at the people who voted against this -- Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Bachmann?
clarky07 13y ago
Really interesting thing here is that 12 people didn't vote, exactly the margin of defeat. I wonder how many of them were leaning towards voting for it, and how many of them were strong advised (coerced) to abstain.

291 points by llamataboot 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

livestyle 13y ago

Would be interested in a consolidated list names of those who voted in favor and against this bill.

dlg 13y ago
It's not available yet, but will be posted first at http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2013&rollnumber=412&TB_iframe=true&height=400&width=650 http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2013&rollnumber... SF HNers: Rep. Pelosi was against the ammendment.
- gonzo 13y ago
  so vote her out.
  - flyt 13y ago
    Good luck with that, she is an incumbent and incumbents have a greater than 90% reelection rate. All of her primary challengers have been total nuts like Cindy Sheehan in the past, and she easily coasts to victory every two years.
    - igravious 13y ago
      Ah you must mean that nutbag Cindy Sheehan whose son was killed during the ill-judged invasion/occupation of Iraq. "Near the end of his active service, the U.S. invasion of Iraq began. [Casey] Sheehan reenlisted, knowing that his unit would be sent there.[5] Sheehan's division, the First Cavalry Division, was sent to Iraq. On March 19, 2004, Sheehan's Battery C, 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, arrived at FOB Camp War Eagle in Sadr City. On April 4, 2004, Sheehan was killed in action after volunteering to be part of a Quick Reaction Force to rescue American troops." She then goes on to become a vocal critic of the previous and current admin. She becomes an antiwar activist.
      - flyt 13y ago
        I don't doubt that she has conviction, but I question her ability to be an effective advocate in Congress compared to the (then) Speaker of the House.
    - WildUtah 13y ago
      Maybe Ro Khanna will move over and run against her! Seriously, though, Swalwell proved that it can be done. Get somebody serious to run against her. I know I always relished voting against her when I lived in SF even though I had to hold my nose and vote Republican.
    - ajays 13y ago
      > incumbents have a greater than 90% reelection rate Which is mind-boggling, considering that the Congress' approval rating is 12% ! Thing about it: only 12% of the people think that the Congress is doing a good job, and these people STILL get re-elected! Is it any wonder that we're in this mess? http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/07/24/obama-congress-nbc-wall-street-journal-poll/2581993/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/07/24/obama-congr...
      - mjn 13y ago
        That's Congress's general approval rating, when you ask someone to nonspecifically rate "Congress". When you ask them to rate their own specific Congressperson (which is who they can vote for or against), approval averages around 45-50%, and rises to 60% among people who actually know the Representative's name [1]. So the average American strongly dislikes Representatives from other districts, but is okay with their own. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-own-representative.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-ow...
- benihana 13y ago
  SF HNers: Rep. Pelosi was against the ammendment. Surprising no one.
- jcdavis 13y ago
  Its worth noting that from my quick glance, she was the only Bay Area congressperson to vote No. Incredibly disappointed
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Depends on what you count as the Bay Area, but here's a tally for a sort of extended version of it: CA-2: Huffman (D), yes CA-3: Garamendi (D), yes CA-5: Thompson (D), no CA-11: Miller (D), yes CA-12: Pelosi (D), no CA-13: Lee (D), yes CA-14: Speier (D), yes CA-15: Swalwell (D), yes CA-17: Honda (D), yes CA-18: Eshoo (D), yes CA-19: Lofgren (D), yes CA-20: Farr (D), yes So 10/12 of the Bay Area voted yes, rather disproportionately in favor compared to the nationwide vote. Until putting together this list, I hadn't actually realized there are no Republicans in the entire extended Bay Area, incidentally. You have to go all the way to Modesto to find a GOP Congressman (in CA-10, where Denham voted "no").
  - ajays 13y ago
    Because the SF people vote her in like sheep, again and again. She knows her seat is not threatened, so she'll vote in her _own_ interests. I refuse to vote for her. I'll vote for the Republican challenger every time.
    - bodyfour 13y ago
      Or, perhaps a little less cynically: she's the minority leader so she's expected to vote in the party's interest. When your party holds the White House that basically means supporting the administration. I don't mean this as a defense of Pelosi though. I'm also in CA-12; I usually just abstain from voting for US Rep.
unimpressive 13y ago
I would be interested in knowing where I can find this sort of information in general.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- svachalek 13y ago
  govtrack.us generally has this info although I don't think this particular vote is posted yet.
- emhart 13y ago
  Senate: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_m... House: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp
- hga 13y ago
  Look later (today or definitely tomorrow) at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php ; click on Bill Number, enter H.R. 2397 (periods are necessary), click on the correct search result. For this particular amendment and vote, go to the lower right corner where there's "All Congressional Actions with Amendments".
- cinquemb 13y ago
  here's raw if the links posted by others are 404ing for you: https://gist.github.com/beaugunderson/6075673 https://gist.github.com/beaugunderson/6075673
clarkm 13y ago
Here is the roll call with a map from the NYT: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412 http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412 Not only did the vote fail to break along party lines, it didn't break along geographic lines either. Outside of the Bay Area, I don't see any obvious patterns, like an urban / rural split. Does anyone see anything else?
- mturmon 13y ago
  Good question. It's more muddled than typical votes. If you take the party line (Dems favored the amendment, Reps disfavored) as a baseline, you have to explain two things: solid red (R's who voted Yes) and striped blue (D's who voted No). So, the regional delta's on that baseline: (1) the Western states (Montana down to New Mexico) had plenty of Republican votes for (solid red); (2) the DC-NY area had more Dem votes against (striped blue). The standard explanation of (1) would be libertarian Westerners, and for (2) would be, that was where 9/11 was, plus that's where much of the intelligence community lives. If you're in the government, you may trust the government more. I don't know how to explain the consistent voting of Tennessee and South Carolina.
  - ars 13y ago
    I don't think you can take that party line as a baseline. The president is democrat and is for it - democrat congressmen would have to notice that. But they didn't. I think this issue simply has no party division, it.s each person with their own opinion. (If only all politics could be like that.)
    - mturmon 13y ago
      Sure, each congressperson has their own opinion. But this observation provides no explanatory power. As others have said, one crude characterization of D/R split is that R is generally more supportive of spending for national security. I think this provides the ideological basis for the D/R split. The interests of the President are not aligned with those of Congress in this case: the President is a consumer of the intel. This is why the D's in Congress did not follow him. Additionally, I suspect that Congresspersons have noticed that their constituents are getting restless about intel collection. Obama doesn't have to run for election again, but they do. As an observer of politics, I too find this vote very interesting.

kristopolous 13y ago

I'm knowingly paying an organization to openly wage cyber warfare and espionage operations on me? Splendid. At least we may get a few good HPC and IR publications out of it. Actually, it will probably be outsourced to contractors who will squander it away without producing anything. Unless, that is, the next 9/11 gets planned using twitter hashtags. Actually, since the Sandy Hook shooter openly talked about his plans on 4chan, I'm guessing that even a twitter campaign would still "pass under the radar". I bet the only real consequence is that someone will lose a laptop with like, everybody's social security number and financial history on it. It's going to be so awesome.

marshray 13y ago
Clarify acronyms please?
- Zircom 13y ago
  From what Wikipedia can tell me, the two most relevant terms those acronyms refer too are "High-performance computing" and "Information retrieval".
  - marshray 13y ago
    That makes sense. I was thinking maybe "Incident Response" :-)
unimpressive 13y ago
> Actually, given that the Sandy Hook shooter openly talked about his plans on 4chan, I'm guessing that even that would still "pass under the radar". Hoax? http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/415935/20121217/sandy-hook-newtown-connecticut-adam-lanza.htm http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/415935/20121217/sandy-hook...
- kristopolous 13y ago
  ok fine. Gabriel Giffords shooter posted pictures and details on his MySpace profile prior to the assassination attempt. And for people like Colleen LaRose or the Underwear bomber, just a web browser and plain-old internet led to the apprehension. With Michael Reynolds, traditional "law enforcement officers posing as honeypots" style did the trick. These classical methods seem to be working quite alright. What is the use-case here? Some dastardly secret terrorist conspiracy where they collaboratively make detailed plans, over the internet, in clear text, like this: ----- From: evilbomber@yahoo.com Subject: Re: RE: re: re: Re: Secret plans To: confidant@not-the-fbi.com CC: coconspirator@gmail.com, evildoer2213@excite.com, bombmaker@msn.com Attachments: annotated-map.pdf ---- Hey all, After reviewing the bombing plans of the terrorist attack next Tuesday, set for Washington DC, when the Secretary of State, Jon Carey, is set to arrive by motorcade at 4:15 PM, I've decided that our assassination attempt (where we plan to Kill Jon Carey) would be best suited for a different intersection. As you can see here, there is a better place to bomb the motorcade. Also, I've gotten all the parts for the IED. This includes the incendiary, a timer, and all the wiring necessary. I carefully asked a bunch of questions on various open forums and posted pictures to confirm I made everything right. I also disclosed my intended use of the bombs along with my radical political leanings. Anyway, Down with the USA, and I hope to meet all of you to make this death of a US diplomat a reality, next Tuesday, at 4:15 PM. Patiently Awaiting Martyrdom, evilbomber. P.S.: What's encryption?

tptacek 13y ago

Copied from the other thread, because it bears repeating: I think it's important to keep in mind that the 12 vote margin is comfortable for Amash and supporters of new NSA restrictions and uncomfortable for its defenders. Here's why: opponents of Amash wielded an argument that "split the vote". Representatives who voted against Amash could have done so for one of two reasons: (1) They actively support providing the NSA with unchecked access to cell phone metadata under the "business records" provision of PATRIOT, or (2) They don't support that access, but can't support a broad amendment that potentially de-funds whole NSA programs, and instead need something finer grained to correct NSA with. Meanwhile, everyone who supported Amash believes strongly --- so strongly that they're willing to do something disruptive to NSA --- that new checks on NSA are needed. (I think Amash was a good amendment, if only because it would force the House to do its actual job and carefully regulate intelligence collection; if it caused a temporary shitstorm, so much the better --- it'd be a well-deserved comeuppance for a legislature that has been derelict in its duty to oversee these programs. But you should be aware that opponents of Amash had a persuasive-sounding argument for voting it down even if you believed new regulations were needed.) I think this was a pretty hopeful vote.

llamataboot 13y ago
agreed, especially how quickly it came together and how hard the Dem establishment came down on it. I hope that this is the seed for a strongly bi-partisan group of legislators concerned about civil liberties.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  especially how quickly it came together There was some great coverage of this on the BBC[1] earlier today, before the result was known: (Quotation begins) However, the White House said the measure would deprive the intelligence agencies of a key tool in preventing terror attacks. "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open or deliberative process," said spokesman Jay Carney. (Quotation ends) [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126 (emphasis added)

pawrvx 13y ago

Now you know who runs America.

AsymetricCom 13y ago
Right, the ones we cannot criticize...
- pawrvx 13y ago
  The downvotes just proves my point.

darkmethod 13y ago

Is this the will of the people?

paraxisi 13y ago
Not yet, but it's getting closer.
- meepmorp 13y ago
  Don't assume you're privy to the will of the people.
  - paraxisi 13y ago
    With >50% regularly in polls, I'd say it's a fairly safe bet.
    - meepmorp 13y ago
      Have a look at this poll by WashPost/ABC: http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1150a3SnowdenandSecurity.pdf http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1150a3SnowdenandSecuri... A majority of those surveyed now think Snowden should be criminally charged for his leaking and don't view the surveillance as an unjustified intrusion into people's privacy; interestingly, more people thought it wasn't an unjustified intrusion into their own privacy vs. the privacy of others. It's just one poll, yeah, but don't assume you know the will of the people.
      - subsection1h 13y ago
        Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the poll you linked to, the question that's most relevant to Amash's amendment was the following: 17. Do you think that the National Security Agency's surveillance of telephone call records and internet traffic does or does not intrude on some Americans' privacy rights? Does Intrude: 74% Does Not Intrude: 22% No Opinion: 4%

lettergram 13y ago

Republican: 94 yea 134 Nay Democratic: 111 yea 83 Nay Pretty close and party lines didn't seem all that important.

protomyth 13y ago
Some of the Republicans were probably swayed by the Heritage Foundation's critique of the amendment's wording. This is the type of issue that won't be a party line vote, but I would be curious about an age breakdown.
marcamillion 13y ago
This surprised me too - especially given the rhetoric I was hearing from the lamestream media about this vote being cast along party lines. Given that the majority of Dems in the house voted for it - in fact more than Republicans - I think that is a MAJOR, MAJOR rebuke to Obama. I am sure he will notice that.

altero 13y ago

I think this is the end of the cloud. For me (as european) it is now unacceptable to use american webservices and remote apps. We had a good run.

hga 13y ago
Give it a little while. This is the very first time this issue has come up for a vote post-Snowden, it's also in the summer when plenty of people are not paying all that much attention to this sort of thing (vacations and such). This vote has demonstrated a really serious intent to change things, and there's a good chance they will be in due course.
- altero 13y ago
  All discusion so far has been about spying on US citizen. EU citizens have zero rights in this case.
Silhouette 13y ago
For me (as european) it is now unacceptable to use american webservices and remote apps. As someone running businesses in Europe, I am genuinely concerned about whether the Safe Harbor scheme still protects us legally if we allow US-based services to use personal data about our customers. As I understand it, the point of Safe Harbor is to recognise that some US-based companies have data protection measures sufficient to meet the stronger European standards, and therefore to permit the export of such personal data outside the EEA to those trusted partners where this would otherwise be against the law. Given that the protection that any US-based partner can offer is now known to be limited, and that no-one running a business here could credibly claim not to be aware of that, I don't know where we'd stand legally if a politically active customer decided to make a point. Even if we openly disclose which US-based partners are involved as part of the relevant privacy policy, it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
- altero 13y ago
  It already started. Irish Google has been sued recently for sharing data with american mothership.

KevinEldon 13y ago

Your representative is probably on Twitter. If you've got an account tweet how they voted and what you think about it. Be polite. You can of course email and call them too to share you viewpoint. Find your Representative - http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ Amash vote - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml

kbd 13y ago
Thanks for the links! I learned who my representative was and sent him a respectful e-mail inquiring about his nay vote.
tnorthcutt 13y ago
Thank you, just did this. My rep (Bill Flores) voted "no".
bargl 13y ago
I think this should be higher. I also found my representative and said thank you for supporting the bill. And thank you for posting the links.

pvnick 13y ago

Twelve votes? That's it? Wow, that's incredible. The first real tide change we've seen since the passage of the patriot act. Those who voted Nay seemed to do so because "metadata isn't covered under the 4th amendment." Wait until they find out the NSA is raking in the call contents too [1] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa-cell-phone-calls_n_3520424.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa...

BashiBazouk 13y ago

If this is to be fought the time is close at hand. First off if this is played as a left vs right issue it will lose. Second this needs to be won at the primary level. If both the democrat and the republican in a district/state are against it, then it doesn't really matter who wins as far as this issue is concerned. Bonus points if when the debates start, instead of opposite sides of the issue, they try to one up each other on how they will dismantle the surveillance state. I think asking your Representative their stand on this issue as well as any one else who enters the race is a good start but also try to get some sort of pledge that they will work across the isle with the other party to get this done. This will need at least two election cycles to be successful. Everyone in the house is up for re-election every two years but the senate requires six for everyone to go through the re-election process. I think with some luck, the third senate election cycle might not be needed if enough momentum can be attained. But I think to really succeed it will have to survive a filibuster and possibly a presidential veto. We can do this if we are willing to put aside our political differences, work together and think long term.

guelo 13y ago

If congress were to pass some law (over Obama's veto) limiting the intelligence agencies, what is to stop the administration from coming up with a secret interpretation of the new law that effectively ignored it? They are already in violation of current law, as the author of the Patriot Act has stated. Democracy has been completely subverted at this point. We need impeachments and new anti-secrecy laws.

rhizome 13y ago
Nothing, but good luck claiming victories achieved under an illegal interpretation (see: Iran-Contra).
krapp 13y ago
If you don't trust the government to follow the law in the former case, why would you trust them to follow anti-secrecy laws in the latter? Either the system can possibly work or it can't, you can't say the process is a sham then suggest a legislative solution.

marcamillion 13y ago

Even though I don't have the time to do it, I have a feeling that if you drilled down into the votes some more, you would likely see a pattern/relationship re: authority. i.e. those in higher authority would have voted it down (Boehner, Pelosi, etc.) and those with less authority supported it. So the powerful preserving their power, with the less powerful challenging it. That alone can speak volumes about the potential for their power crumbling. Boehner has been on the ropes recently with his caucus warning him to tread carefully. If that turns out to be the case, then the leadership has big problems. Both in the House and the Whitehouse. That could be good for the issue over the long-term....which is encouraging to me as a "foreigner".

ars 13y ago
If you're going come up with an interesting theory like that you almost have an obligation to track it down definitely. Otherwise you're just making an assumption, and drawing conclusions from it without knowing if your assumption is right.
- marcamillion 13y ago
  I know the feeling, but I figured I would just put it out there and let people more versed at this stuff than I find the relationships, if any exist and let us know.
  - ars 13y ago
    > and let people ...let us know. That virtually never happens. You have to do the work yourself.

D9u 13y ago

The bit about "...not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process" illustrates the hypocrisy inherent to the ruling class. They rarely hold themselves to the same standards which they set forth for the proletariat.

s_q_b 13y ago

Repost from another thread on the same issue: I really do commend everyone involved in this effort. This is how the system is supposed to work, citizens making their voices know, and the legislature acting upon the will of the people. Honestly you guys got far closer to your goal than I would have anticipated. The bipartison support was almost unprecedented in recent years. From a practical matter, even if the House bill passed it was dead on arrival in the Senate. But nevertheless it is a significant symbolic blow to blank surveillance against American citizens. All I've tried to communicate, perhaps with less than appropriate tact, is that this is going to be a long slog. If you're going to reign in the surveillance state, you'll need to start thinking like Washington insiders. Pick one incumbent that vocally supported these programs, and take him or her down. That will instantly catapult this issue to the top of the concerns in DC. It only costs a few million to get that done. Considering the wealth of the tech industry, and the threat this poses to overseas expansion of the US internet services, donations shouldn't be overly difficult to drum up. We could really make a large dent in getting the legislature to help roll back these programs to sane levels. Add to that an anit-SOPA style social media campaign, and you could accomplish real and lasting change.

coldcode 13y ago

The tool who represents my district actually voted AYE. Maybe there is hope for this body of morons.

tzs 13y ago

The votes from members of the Permanent House Select Committee on Intelligence were 2 yes, 21 no. By party, that was among Democrats 2 yes, 8 no, and among Republicans 0 yes, 13 no.

tlongren 13y ago

I read the title as "Amish's Amendment". Wondering what the Amish did to illicit such attention from the NSA.

krapp 13y ago
Well, they are practically untrackable under the current surveillance architecture, and they do have those strange beards...

pteredactyl 13y ago

Maybe its a Spectacle for hegelDialectic/divideConquer #pov

llamataboot 13y ago

I am wondering why we didn't see a /single/ large tech company release something in support of this. Even something as simple as a press release...

evolve2k 13y ago

Which way did Obama himself vote?

pawn 13y ago
He didn't have to, because it didn't pass the House. However, he's been vocally supporting spying, so it's assumed he would have voted No on this bill.

rdl 13y ago

It's really interesting looking at the people who voted against this -- Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Bachmann?

clarky07 13y ago

Really interesting thing here is that 12 people didn't vote, exactly the margin of defeat. I wonder how many of them were leaning towards voting for it, and how many of them were strong advised (coerced) to abstain.