4 ms·

EFF Dismayed by House's Gutted USA Freedom Act

158 points by spenvo 12y ago

WestCoastJustin 12y ago
PBS Frontline is running a ~3 hour documentary, released in two parts, the second installment was released today, of the entire post 9/11 NSA surveillance episode, up to and including the Snowden leaks @ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-sec... Well worth a watch.
- samstave 12y ago
  So while this is fantastic - if you pay attention to the first part of it - there is still a heavy dose of propaganda tied to the perception of how this all came about - as if it was some surprise emergent behavior that is outside anyone's expectation that this would have occurred. As opposed to the reality that the whole thing is decades in the making and we can track exactly who built this thing. (Hint: who build PNAC?)
  - tunap 12y ago
    Joe knows! Allow me to just... drop this here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of...
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Terry Gross's interview last week with two of the subjects of the FrontLine series, Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe was also excellent: http://www.wnyc.org/story/frontline-doc-explores-how-sept-11-created-todays-nsa/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/frontline-doc-explores-how-sept-11...
- dfc 12y ago
  Do you think it is well worth a watch for people who have been following the issue? I thought it was a nice introduction but there was hardly anything shocking or new in the show. Was it entertaining? I guess, but professional documentaries that reinforce your world view are usually somewhat entertaining. Was it informative for someone that has read the coverage in the Guardian/FirstLook/NYT/WaPo? In all honesty, no.
- us0r 12y ago
  Part two was kind of disappointing. They went after Google, glossed over Facebook and did not even mention Microsoft whom is the only one so far (outside of the telcos) "partnering" with them.
  - droopybuns 12y ago
    Major funding for FRONTLINE’s broadcast season is provided by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I do not believe that those grants are completely without perks for the big doners. That said- I don't think MS is the most interesting story here. Google has earned their reputation with Eric Schmidt's cavilier attitude and hypocrisy.
    - higherpurpose 12y ago
      And Microsoft "earned a reputation" of the "privacy-friendly" company than they goes behind our backs to weaken their own crypto systems to make data collection easier by the NSA/FBI from their services. At least Google/Schmidt was pretty honest about their intentions regarding privacy. Microsoft is just selling us out. http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/13/nsa-docs-detail-efforts-to-collect-data-from-microsofts-skype-skydrive-and-outlook-com/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/13/nsa-docs-detail-efforts-to-... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-c... Also Google has always tried to be at the forefront of securing their services, such as adopting wide encryption and PFS early on. I'm not defending Google, and I'm going to quit Gmail as soon as a good end-to-end encryption e-mail services comes around, but of the two, I definitely see Microsoft as the worse one in terms of privacy.
      - droopybuns 12y ago
        I appreciate your thoughts here. I'm amused by the fact that we're both looking at this from a "lesser of two evils" perspective and coming to different conclusions. The reality is they both just suck. The degrees of suck exist, but I don't even want to be debating it when we're in this deep on privacy violations. MS sucks because of the residual arrogance of the average MSFT employee, and their failures on data colleciton. GOOG sucks because of the privacy disconnect between the officers and the engineers. I don't understand how they can have some of the talent they do working on "privacy" when their executive can be such an ass. "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions [...] They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next" "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" "people who take issue with their homes appearing online can just move after Google cars photograph their homes or businesses" I really want to understand why some of the security experts they have would enter into this kind of faustian deal. Is it the nice car & the expensive mortgage eventually overcomes all ideals? I appreciate that Chrome is probably one of the best private browsers available today. But if your motivation truly is privacy and if the company funding your work has its principal revenue source in advertising, where do you draw the line? Where is the threshold where your sacrifice in principles is no longer worth the opportunity to work on "privacy"?
ipsin 12y ago
It would be interesting to trace the true lineage of this (or any) legislative edit. It has a smell if an outside source, as though our laws are not written by our lawmakers.
- ganeumann 12y ago
  An article on The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/206686-privacy-advocates-pull-support-for-watered-down-usa-freedom http://thehill.com/policy/technology/206686-privacy-advocate...) says that the change was made at the behest of the Obama administration: "[A]fter moving through the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, where it saw some changes but retained the support of privacy advocates, last minute negotiations between House leadership and the Obama administration have left the bill with weakened language when it comes to banning mass surveillance, advocates say." Disappointing on many levels.
  - pekk 12y ago
    Because we all know how the Tea Party-heavy House has done whatever Obama wanted
    - hga 12y ago
      The House leadership loathes the "Tea Party" types with a burning passion, e.g. along with the rest of the Republican establishment has made it very clear they prefer a Democrat winning to a "Tea Party" type. And is ever ready to cut a deal with Obama; there's no surprise here, especially with how much power a House majority leadership team has.
      - pekk 12y ago
        This is a blatant lie. If you look at any actual survey data, the Tea Party is strictly a wing of the Republican party and it has been nothing but good for the political fortunes of the Republican party, which is extremely concerned with what the Tea Party wants. Without the Tea Party, the Republicans would not have had the House all these years.
misiti3780 12y ago
Wouldnt be great if bills were edited in github or something analogous so you could see who committed the gutting? Oh well, back to my ipython notebook.
- alttab 12y ago
  Sorry, git blame might be able to hold people accountable for their decisions. This is the reason it would take revolution or something equally disruptive to introduce it.
  - pekk 12y ago
    I'm always surprised at how many people naively suppose that bloodshed will automatically generate political reform.
    - davvolun 12y ago
      You have sort of a logical fallacy there. You're presuming that people assume "if (bloodshed) then (reform)" but I think what is generally assumed is "if not(bloodshed) then not(reform)". Using boolean algebra, let p be (bloodshed) and q be (reform), then what is assumed is !p -> !q which (and it's been a little while since my boolean algebra classes) would be identical to q -> p, i.e. the inverse of what you said, reform implies that there was bloodshed or rather that reform cannot happen without bloodshed. In that light, I think how many people naively supposing that reform can only come from bloodshed is pretty surprising. However, it seems to be the case that the threat of bloodshed tends to be a strong motivator for action; however, the action is not always what's desired. What is viewed as an external threat (e.g. Oklahoma City Bombing, McVeigh et al are viewed as dangerous extremists not "America's own sons") and thus reaction to their wishes--apparently that the US move away from a dominant federal government--was largely in the reverse; whether by their actions or others, the federal government since 1995 has probably gotten considerably more powerful.
- hippee-lee 12y ago
  More than interesting. It would be a way to account what people say and what they do.
dfc 12y ago
If you want to see the differences between the version introduced in October of 2013 and the most recent amended version see here: https://gist.github.com/dfc/1819eace21dc47358f38/revisions https://gist.github.com/dfc/1819eace21dc47358f38/revisions Sadly I have never had much luck/success with the bill changes interface on opencongress.org.
justinph 12y ago
With a name like the USA FREEDOM Act, how could you go wrong?
- dfc 12y ago
  It is always amusing to see how they come up with the short titles: USA FREEDOM Act: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring Act
- rodgerd 12y ago
  Much as a Democratic Peoples' Republic is likely to be none of the 3.
suprgeek 12y ago
By most reports this bill was watered down on the express meddling of the White house. This is very unfortunate in that Senator Obama had clearly promised in his pre-election speeches to explicitly push for what this bill was (somewhat) trying to do. Watch this point-by-point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vixVPE4LBAU# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vixVPE4LBAU#! Now that he is in a position to do so, President Obama is fighting tooth-and-nail to make this a toothless(!) bill. Why?
- alexeisadeski3 12y ago
  Why? Because... he's a politician?
  - chc 12y ago
    So was everyone else involved with the bill. That explanation is insufficient.
    - alexeisadeski3 12y ago
      The question was why did he say one thing then do another.
      - chc 12y ago
        No, the question was not that general. The question was, verbatim: "Now that he is in a position to do so, President Obama is fighting tooth-and-nail to make this a toothless(!) bill. Why?" Many other politicians did not fight this bill tooth and nail, so that doesn't explain why Obama did.
dan_bk 12y ago
If such watered down "solutions" are what we get for just about the most arcane form of surveillance (phone calls), then what are the "solutions" for electronic surveillance (where the real surveillance happens) going to look like?

158 points by spenvo 12y ago

PBS Frontline is running a ~3 hour documentary, released in two parts, the second installment was released today, of the entire post 9/11 NSA surveillance episode, up to and including the Snowden leaks @ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-sec... Well worth a watch.

samstave 12y ago
So while this is fantastic - if you pay attention to the first part of it - there is still a heavy dose of propaganda tied to the perception of how this all came about - as if it was some surprise emergent behavior that is outside anyone's expectation that this would have occurred. As opposed to the reality that the whole thing is decades in the making and we can track exactly who built this thing. (Hint: who build PNAC?)
- tunap 12y ago
  Joe knows! Allow me to just... drop this here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of...
dredmorbius 12y ago
Terry Gross's interview last week with two of the subjects of the FrontLine series, Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe was also excellent: http://www.wnyc.org/story/frontline-doc-explores-how-sept-11-created-todays-nsa/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/frontline-doc-explores-how-sept-11...
dfc 12y ago
Do you think it is well worth a watch for people who have been following the issue? I thought it was a nice introduction but there was hardly anything shocking or new in the show. Was it entertaining? I guess, but professional documentaries that reinforce your world view are usually somewhat entertaining. Was it informative for someone that has read the coverage in the Guardian/FirstLook/NYT/WaPo? In all honesty, no.
us0r 12y ago
Part two was kind of disappointing. They went after Google, glossed over Facebook and did not even mention Microsoft whom is the only one so far (outside of the telcos) "partnering" with them.
- droopybuns 12y ago
  Major funding for FRONTLINE’s broadcast season is provided by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I do not believe that those grants are completely without perks for the big doners. That said- I don't think MS is the most interesting story here. Google has earned their reputation with Eric Schmidt's cavilier attitude and hypocrisy.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    And Microsoft "earned a reputation" of the "privacy-friendly" company than they goes behind our backs to weaken their own crypto systems to make data collection easier by the NSA/FBI from their services. At least Google/Schmidt was pretty honest about their intentions regarding privacy. Microsoft is just selling us out. http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/13/nsa-docs-detail-efforts-to-collect-data-from-microsofts-skype-skydrive-and-outlook-com/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/13/nsa-docs-detail-efforts-to-... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-c... Also Google has always tried to be at the forefront of securing their services, such as adopting wide encryption and PFS early on. I'm not defending Google, and I'm going to quit Gmail as soon as a good end-to-end encryption e-mail services comes around, but of the two, I definitely see Microsoft as the worse one in terms of privacy.
    - droopybuns 12y ago
      I appreciate your thoughts here. I'm amused by the fact that we're both looking at this from a "lesser of two evils" perspective and coming to different conclusions. The reality is they both just suck. The degrees of suck exist, but I don't even want to be debating it when we're in this deep on privacy violations. MS sucks because of the residual arrogance of the average MSFT employee, and their failures on data colleciton. GOOG sucks because of the privacy disconnect between the officers and the engineers. I don't understand how they can have some of the talent they do working on "privacy" when their executive can be such an ass. "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions [...] They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next" "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" "people who take issue with their homes appearing online can just move after Google cars photograph their homes or businesses" I really want to understand why some of the security experts they have would enter into this kind of faustian deal. Is it the nice car & the expensive mortgage eventually overcomes all ideals? I appreciate that Chrome is probably one of the best private browsers available today. But if your motivation truly is privacy and if the company funding your work has its principal revenue source in advertising, where do you draw the line? Where is the threshold where your sacrifice in principles is no longer worth the opportunity to work on "privacy"?

ipsin 12y ago

It would be interesting to trace the true lineage of this (or any) legislative edit. It has a smell if an outside source, as though our laws are not written by our lawmakers.

ganeumann 12y ago
An article on The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/206686-privacy-advocates-pull-support-for-watered-down-usa-freedom http://thehill.com/policy/technology/206686-privacy-advocate...) says that the change was made at the behest of the Obama administration: "[A]fter moving through the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, where it saw some changes but retained the support of privacy advocates, last minute negotiations between House leadership and the Obama administration have left the bill with weakened language when it comes to banning mass surveillance, advocates say." Disappointing on many levels.
- pekk 12y ago
  Because we all know how the Tea Party-heavy House has done whatever Obama wanted
  - hga 12y ago
    The House leadership loathes the "Tea Party" types with a burning passion, e.g. along with the rest of the Republican establishment has made it very clear they prefer a Democrat winning to a "Tea Party" type. And is ever ready to cut a deal with Obama; there's no surprise here, especially with how much power a House majority leadership team has.
    - pekk 12y ago
      This is a blatant lie. If you look at any actual survey data, the Tea Party is strictly a wing of the Republican party and it has been nothing but good for the political fortunes of the Republican party, which is extremely concerned with what the Tea Party wants. Without the Tea Party, the Republicans would not have had the House all these years.

misiti3780 12y ago

Wouldnt be great if bills were edited in github or something analogous so you could see who committed the gutting? Oh well, back to my ipython notebook.

alttab 12y ago
Sorry, git blame might be able to hold people accountable for their decisions. This is the reason it would take revolution or something equally disruptive to introduce it.
- pekk 12y ago
  I'm always surprised at how many people naively suppose that bloodshed will automatically generate political reform.
  - davvolun 12y ago
    You have sort of a logical fallacy there. You're presuming that people assume "if (bloodshed) then (reform)" but I think what is generally assumed is "if not(bloodshed) then not(reform)". Using boolean algebra, let p be (bloodshed) and q be (reform), then what is assumed is !p -> !q which (and it's been a little while since my boolean algebra classes) would be identical to q -> p, i.e. the inverse of what you said, reform implies that there was bloodshed or rather that reform cannot happen without bloodshed. In that light, I think how many people naively supposing that reform can only come from bloodshed is pretty surprising. However, it seems to be the case that the threat of bloodshed tends to be a strong motivator for action; however, the action is not always what's desired. What is viewed as an external threat (e.g. Oklahoma City Bombing, McVeigh et al are viewed as dangerous extremists not "America's own sons") and thus reaction to their wishes--apparently that the US move away from a dominant federal government--was largely in the reverse; whether by their actions or others, the federal government since 1995 has probably gotten considerably more powerful.
hippee-lee 12y ago
More than interesting. It would be a way to account what people say and what they do.

dfc 12y ago

If you want to see the differences between the version introduced in October of 2013 and the most recent amended version see here: https://gist.github.com/dfc/1819eace21dc47358f38/revisions https://gist.github.com/dfc/1819eace21dc47358f38/revisions Sadly I have never had much luck/success with the bill changes interface on opencongress.org.

justinph 12y ago

With a name like the USA FREEDOM Act, how could you go wrong?

dfc 12y ago
It is always amusing to see how they come up with the short titles: USA FREEDOM Act: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring Act
rodgerd 12y ago
Much as a Democratic Peoples' Republic is likely to be none of the 3.

suprgeek 12y ago

By most reports this bill was watered down on the express meddling of the White house. This is very unfortunate in that Senator Obama had clearly promised in his pre-election speeches to explicitly push for what this bill was (somewhat) trying to do. Watch this point-by-point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vixVPE4LBAU# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vixVPE4LBAU#! Now that he is in a position to do so, President Obama is fighting tooth-and-nail to make this a toothless(!) bill. Why?

alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Why? Because... he's a politician?
- chc 12y ago
  So was everyone else involved with the bill. That explanation is insufficient.
  - alexeisadeski3 12y ago
    The question was why did he say one thing then do another.
    - chc 12y ago
      No, the question was not that general. The question was, verbatim: "Now that he is in a position to do so, President Obama is fighting tooth-and-nail to make this a toothless(!) bill. Why?" Many other politicians did not fight this bill tooth and nail, so that doesn't explain why Obama did.

dan_bk 12y ago

If such watered down "solutions" are what we get for just about the most arcane form of surveillance (phone calls), then what are the "solutions" for electronic surveillance (where the real surveillance happens) going to look like?