8 ms·

House Defeats Effort to Rein In N.S.A. Data Gathering

74 points by mbateman 13y ago

NoPiece 13y ago
The roll call if you are interested in how your congressman voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml
- ars 13y ago
  217 to 205 - defeated by 6 votes. Well 7 since I guess a tie would have gone against it. 12 not voting. Looks like party didn't matter - it was more or less even Republican/Democrat.
- tzs 13y ago
  Why are some listed with their state name, and some are not? At first, I thought this was to disambiguate when there is more than one Representative with the same last name, which would explain the listings for Smith (MO), Smith (NJ), Smith (NE), Smith (TX), and Smith (WA). However, there's also "Frankel (FL)", but there is only one Frankel in the House, so that shoots down that theory.
- LoganCale 13y ago
  Well, today I learned I'm not voting to reelect my Congressman.
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    Mine were one aye and one abstention, (the abstention from a neighboring district that isn't technically my district but was gerrymandered to run through part of my home city.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
clarkm 13y ago
Here is roll call, complete with a map: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412 http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412 The vote wasn't partisan, nor did it break along geographic lines.
- ISL 13y ago
  Furthermore, some urban districts are invisible at that scale.
  - rgbrenner 13y ago
    You can zoom in by double clicking on the map
- newman314 13y ago
  Interestingly, if all the "did not votes" voted for the measure, it would have been a tie.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    Usually the way vote counting works is the leadership figures out whether it's going to win or lose, and then members in swing districts to vote the other way. It doesn't change the outcome, but it does give them political cover. If all the representatives had voted the way they wanted it to turn out, the result would probably have been much more lopsided. It's theater, basically.
- lettergram 13y ago
  Well I know my representative didn't vote the way I wanted (and I sent him an email)... looks like someone will lose their vote! Not to mention i'll convince others.
AsymetricCom 13y ago
So when do we see a similar vote to rein in corporate and other private entity data gathering? Or are we all conservatives here?
- LoganCale 13y ago
  First things first. If anything, this is making a lot of people more aware of privacy issues, and that may eventually spread beyond just the NSA.
- noarchy 13y ago
  Of course corporate entities should not be getting away with anything you haven't agreed to let them do. People need to become more aware of what they're agreeing to when they use any service. You can try to inform them, but you can't think for them, and you can't act for them. At some stage, they need to make an effort. But the difference with something like the NSA is, you can't opt-out of what they're doing. With a company, you can take your business elsewhere. This isn't so easy with the government, unfortunately.
s_q_b 13y ago
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 blanket 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.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  > Pick one incumbent that vocally supported these programs, and take him or her down. That sounds wonderful. Who do you suggest? Mike Rogers? Ruppersberger? Labrador?
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    Let me think on that. It's really a political question of vulnerability. You want someone that's prominent enough in the debate, but weak enough in their home district to take down. A senator would be better than a Congressman... You'll also have to remember that there is a series of corporate interests, large and small, with very deep pockets that will oppose any check on the surveillance state, no matter how reasonable. Full Disclosure: I don't support outright ending these programs, as many of you do. I do support real judicial oversight, transparency into the law being made in the FISA opinions, and a series of internal and external safeguards to reign these programs in from the brink. I know it's not the most popular opinion in these parts, but politics makes for strange bedfellows. No reason that we can't work together on the things we agree upon.
finkin1 13y ago
I'm somewhat encouraged by this. 12 votes and it would have passed. Even though it didn't pass and will ultimately be seen as a failure, I imagine this will serve as a wake-up call. Imagine the investment made by the NSA into collecting and processing all of this data. 12 votes and it could have changed. This must have scared the shit out of someone. Hopefully this is just the beginning.
- ars 13y ago
  6 votes actually, not 12. (Well 7 because of the tie breaker.)
ojbyrne 13y ago
I hope that every tech person in SF will be clear and unequivocal in saying ... "Dear Ms. Pelosi, you have demonstrated that you do not represent your constituents and you will never receive my vote, and that I will put all my efforts into ensuring that you are never reelected."
- n09n 13y ago
  Assuming we all agree with you is pretty arrogant. A lot of people will do as you say, and a lot of people will do the opposite. As long as nobody acts like a sore loser about it, everyone goes home happy.
  - ojbyrne 13y ago
    I don't see how you got "Assuming we all agree with you" out of "I hope."
webwanderings 13y ago
What a mind boggling time we are living in where the liberal government is pressing to keep such practices and conservatives are against it only because they are against liberals in principle. If this is not the doom of two-party ideology of liberal/conservative political system than I am not sure what is.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >What a mind boggling time we are living in where the liberal government is pressing to keep such practices and conservatives are against it only because they are against liberals in principle. What in the world are you talking about? Do you have any reason to believe this is true?
  - randomknowledge 13y ago
    During the bush years "conservatives" [republicans] tended to be more in favour of government surveillance, while "liberals"[democrats] tended to be more opposed. Now that Obama is in power conservatives are more opposed while liberals are less opposed. The switch would suggest that at least some of these individuals (on both sides) are motivated by politics and not principle.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      >Now that Obama is in power conservatives are more opposed while liberals are less opposed. The switch would suggest that at least some of these individuals (on both sides) are motivated by politics and not principle. But you're not talking about the same thing. The idea that you can support warrantless tapping of international calls when the other end of the line is a suspected terrorist and oppose the dragnet of all call records and emails doesn't indicate a lack of principle. We're talking about policies with a much different scope.
lettergram 13y ago
This will probably come up again (along similar lines) clearly there would be enough support after some back room deals.

74 points by mbateman 13y ago

The roll call if you are interested in how your congressman voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml

ars 13y ago
217 to 205 - defeated by 6 votes. Well 7 since I guess a tie would have gone against it. 12 not voting. Looks like party didn't matter - it was more or less even Republican/Democrat.
tzs 13y ago
Why are some listed with their state name, and some are not? At first, I thought this was to disambiguate when there is more than one Representative with the same last name, which would explain the listings for Smith (MO), Smith (NJ), Smith (NE), Smith (TX), and Smith (WA). However, there's also "Frankel (FL)", but there is only one Frankel in the House, so that shoots down that theory.
LoganCale 13y ago
Well, today I learned I'm not voting to reelect my Congressman.
- s_q_b 13y ago
  Mine were one aye and one abstention, (the abstention from a neighboring district that isn't technically my district but was gerrymandered to run through part of my home city.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

clarkm 13y ago

Here is roll call, complete with a map: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412 http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412 The vote wasn't partisan, nor did it break along geographic lines.

ISL 13y ago
Furthermore, some urban districts are invisible at that scale.
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  You can zoom in by double clicking on the map
newman314 13y ago
Interestingly, if all the "did not votes" voted for the measure, it would have been a tie.
- tsotha 13y ago
  Usually the way vote counting works is the leadership figures out whether it's going to win or lose, and then members in swing districts to vote the other way. It doesn't change the outcome, but it does give them political cover. If all the representatives had voted the way they wanted it to turn out, the result would probably have been much more lopsided. It's theater, basically.
lettergram 13y ago
Well I know my representative didn't vote the way I wanted (and I sent him an email)... looks like someone will lose their vote! Not to mention i'll convince others.

AsymetricCom 13y ago

So when do we see a similar vote to rein in corporate and other private entity data gathering? Or are we all conservatives here?

LoganCale 13y ago
First things first. If anything, this is making a lot of people more aware of privacy issues, and that may eventually spread beyond just the NSA.
noarchy 13y ago
Of course corporate entities should not be getting away with anything you haven't agreed to let them do. People need to become more aware of what they're agreeing to when they use any service. You can try to inform them, but you can't think for them, and you can't act for them. At some stage, they need to make an effort. But the difference with something like the NSA is, you can't opt-out of what they're doing. With a company, you can take your business elsewhere. This isn't so easy with the government, unfortunately.

s_q_b 13y ago

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 blanket 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.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
> Pick one incumbent that vocally supported these programs, and take him or her down. That sounds wonderful. Who do you suggest? Mike Rogers? Ruppersberger? Labrador?
- s_q_b 13y ago
  Let me think on that. It's really a political question of vulnerability. You want someone that's prominent enough in the debate, but weak enough in their home district to take down. A senator would be better than a Congressman... You'll also have to remember that there is a series of corporate interests, large and small, with very deep pockets that will oppose any check on the surveillance state, no matter how reasonable. Full Disclosure: I don't support outright ending these programs, as many of you do. I do support real judicial oversight, transparency into the law being made in the FISA opinions, and a series of internal and external safeguards to reign these programs in from the brink. I know it's not the most popular opinion in these parts, but politics makes for strange bedfellows. No reason that we can't work together on the things we agree upon.

finkin1 13y ago

I'm somewhat encouraged by this. 12 votes and it would have passed. Even though it didn't pass and will ultimately be seen as a failure, I imagine this will serve as a wake-up call. Imagine the investment made by the NSA into collecting and processing all of this data. 12 votes and it could have changed. This must have scared the shit out of someone. Hopefully this is just the beginning.

ars 13y ago
6 votes actually, not 12. (Well 7 because of the tie breaker.)

ojbyrne 13y ago

I hope that every tech person in SF will be clear and unequivocal in saying ... "Dear Ms. Pelosi, you have demonstrated that you do not represent your constituents and you will never receive my vote, and that I will put all my efforts into ensuring that you are never reelected."

n09n 13y ago
Assuming we all agree with you is pretty arrogant. A lot of people will do as you say, and a lot of people will do the opposite. As long as nobody acts like a sore loser about it, everyone goes home happy.
- ojbyrne 13y ago
  I don't see how you got "Assuming we all agree with you" out of "I hope."

webwanderings 13y ago

What a mind boggling time we are living in where the liberal government is pressing to keep such practices and conservatives are against it only because they are against liberals in principle. If this is not the doom of two-party ideology of liberal/conservative political system than I am not sure what is.

tsotha 13y ago
>What a mind boggling time we are living in where the liberal government is pressing to keep such practices and conservatives are against it only because they are against liberals in principle. What in the world are you talking about? Do you have any reason to believe this is true?
- randomknowledge 13y ago
  During the bush years "conservatives" [republicans] tended to be more in favour of government surveillance, while "liberals"[democrats] tended to be more opposed. Now that Obama is in power conservatives are more opposed while liberals are less opposed. The switch would suggest that at least some of these individuals (on both sides) are motivated by politics and not principle.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    >Now that Obama is in power conservatives are more opposed while liberals are less opposed. The switch would suggest that at least some of these individuals (on both sides) are motivated by politics and not principle. But you're not talking about the same thing. The idea that you can support warrantless tapping of international calls when the other end of the line is a suspected terrorist and oppose the dragnet of all call records and emails doesn't indicate a lack of principle. We're talking about policies with a much different scope.

lettergram 13y ago

This will probably come up again (along similar lines) clearly there would be enough support after some back room deals.