6 ms·
The USA Freedom Act: What's to Come and What You Need to Know
- dmix 12y agoThis is pretty light on details. Is there a TLDR of the changes around? Post-water-down version ideally.
- RoundCube 12y agohttps://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act-two-pager-final https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act-two-pa...
- jessaustin 12y agoWow a bill that isn't the exact opposite of what its name would imply. Admittedly I was not encouraged when I saw the phrase "USA Freedom".
- kijin 12y agoNames of bills nowadays have little to do with their content. Maybe we should just get rid of names altogether and refer to them by SHA hashes of their content... "Some moron amended bill f7eed03, now it's bill f5ba821. Do you know how much I had to tweak the language in order to generate a hash that looks like 'freedom'?"
- gizmo686 12y agoWhy not refer to the bill as H.R.3361. For anyone interested, here is the bill in question: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361 https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361
- kijin 12y agoHashes would make it a lot easier to detect sneaky last-minute changes.
- uptown 12y agoTake a look at what New York City Council Member Ben Kallos is doing. He posts his legislation to GitHub so tracking changes is easy. https://github.com/BenKallos/legislation https://github.com/BenKallos/legislation It's a unique approach to governing that I wish more would follow.
- lazaroclapp 12y ago"Under the bill, Internet and telecommunications companies are allowed to report publicly an estimate of: (1) the number of FISA orders and NSLs received; (2) the number of such orders and NSLs complied with; and (3) the number of users or accounts on whom information was demanded under the orders and letters." Is it just me, or the last one is a pretty big deal? Since before, "number of NSLs" could include a single letter asking for all the data on all users or really large sets of accounts. Of course, there is still always the typical loophole of "oh, it wasn't an NSL, it was data collected under a different program...", but otherwise this bill does seem to address a lot of the issues with NSA collection happening at completely secret rates, based on secret law interpreted by secret courts. Am I being too optimistic about it?
- diminoten 12y agoYeah, because the EFF is going to be unbiased when it comes to explaining legislation. I'm so sick of how partisan the EFF has become.
- drjesusphd 12y agoTaking a stand on an issue is not the same thing as partisianship.
- deciplex 12y agoAs opposed to...? I guess you are expecting the EFF to be neutral with regard to NSA snooping and data collection, versus NSA not doing any of those things. That's not a reasonable ask, though.
- diminoten 12y agoI'm just expecting honesty, is all. I don't feel the EFF is honest in its approach to its stances, and that makes me worry that their positions aren't defensible.
- crusso 12y agoWhat does "unbiased" mean in the context of a group that has a stated advocacy purpose? Why would we expect or want anything else? You're free to act or not upon the EFF's urging - but at least they're honest about their goals.
- bgentry 12y agoI don't think the EFF has adequately answered the concerns raised by Marcy Wheeler about the risks and weaknesses of this bill: https://www.emptywheel.net/2014/11/12/why-i-dont-support-usa-freedom-act/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2014/11/12/why-i-dont-support-usa...
- sinak 12y agoIf I'm not mistaken, this is EFF's latest analysis of the bill, as well as their justification for supporting: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/understanding-new-usa-freedom-act-questions-concerns-and-effs-decision-support https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/understanding-new-usa-... The bill isn't perfect, but it'll mean that the government collects less information on innocent people, there'll be greater transparency, and an advocate for citizen privacy in the FISA court. Beyond that, it's the most likely vehicle for NSA reform. We're unlikely to see anything stronger if this doesn't pass. And it seems like a better bet than trying to push for Section 215 to sunset next year.
- bgentry 12y agoAs per the article I linked, it also likely nullifies the Klayman case, a case which could very likely turn out to have an even bigger effect than this bill.
- cinquemb 12y agoSome background to those not familiar from Wikipedia[0]: ~Filing~ "In Klayman I, the plaintiffs, subscribers of Verizon Wireless, brought suit against the NSA, the Department of Justice, Verizon Communications, President Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General, and General Keith B. Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency.[5] The plaintiffs alleged that the government is conducting a "secret and illegal government scheme to intercept vast quantities of domestic telephonic communications" and that the program violates First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and exceeds statutory authority granted by Section 215.[5] In Klayman II, the plaintiffs sued the same government defendants and in addition, Facebook, Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, YouTube, AOL, PalTalk, Skype, Sprint, AT&T, Apple again alleging the bulk metadata collection violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and constitutes divulgence of communication records in violation of Section 2702 of Stored Communications Act.[4]" ~Current Status~ "On January 3, 2014 the government filed notice of appeal. On February 21, 2014 government filed a motion for extension of time to file dispositive motions in wake of the President's changes to Section 215 metadata program on January 17, 2014.[17][18] The parties argued the case before a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 4, 2014.[19]" [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama
- calinet6 12y agoThis page, content-wise, doesn't appear to have a clear message. EFF -- if you're listening -- it would be great to stake a very clear position on this bill at the very top of your statement. Something like "We urge you to support the USA Freedom Act." Since neither the name of the bill itself, nor anything on the page, makes it clear that the "Freedom Act" is an act against the digital surveillance of US citizens, someone who had never heard of the Act, or someone skimming the page, would not gain a meaningful conclusion. I was unsure at first whether to support or decry the bill, and heck, the name even sounds like "Patriot Act." The title of the page itself does no help: it paints an ominous message in a severe tone. Marketing: it's important. Be clear. "The signals we give—yes, or no, or maybe— should be clear; the darkness around us is deep." William Stafford -- http://williamstafford.org/spoems/pages/ritual.html http://williamstafford.org/spoems/pages/ritual.html
- xnxn 12y ago> the "Freedom Act" is an act against the digital surveillance of US citizens This was a revelation to me, so I would have to agree. I'm ignorant of the subject and my initial reaction to a thing called the USA Freedom Act was "great, how are my rights about to be curtailed now?"
- 001sky 12y ago"Freedom act takes on Patriot act" --News at 11 Clear as mud.
- ma2rten 12y agoThe first sentences are: "The USA Freedom Act, the leading contender for NSA reform, is set for a vote this week. The bill has some problems, but is a major step forward for surveillance reform. That's why we're asking you to call your Senator and urge them to support the USA Freedom Act." How much more clear do you want it?
- calinet6 12y agoA great deal.
- apendleton 12y agoThe bill isn't all it's cracked up to be. It creates new legal basis for some surveillance activities that are arguably illegal, immunizes companies who participate in mass surveillance, and (most problematically), reauthorizes the Patriot Act. See: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/09/15/sunlight-ellsberg-pccc-tenth-amendment-center-and-others-oppose-the-senate-version-of-the-usa-freedom-act/ http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/09/15/sunlight-ellsb...
- Rapzid 12y agoI've noticed this quite a bit recently.. Maybe I'm just older and it has being going on forever. Bills on the surface that look like they are accomplishing what you want, but when you read between the lines they actually give the nod to stuff you don't want to be happening at all. Secret courts? Advocate. Now secret courts are more OK because apparently we reviewed them and decided they are fine with an advocate. This just cements the status quo into our system.
- coldpie 12y agoRome wasn't built in a day. Legislation is a series of compromises. Think of it more as moving down the field towards your goal against the opposite team, instead of just teleporting there. Specifically, this bill makes phone spying much more onerous, and critically increases transparency which will immediately curtail abuses and fuel further debate. This isn't the last word on the topic.
- marcosdumay 12y ago> This isn't the last word on the topic. Are you sure about that? Because once such law get effective, replacing it will read like an admission of failure to everybody that helped it pass.
- 001sky 12y agoThis is common strategy in propoganda.
- colordrops 12y agoWait, why is a bill even needed? Aren't current laws and the constitution itself already enough? If they are breaking the law now, why should we believe they won't disregard the Freedom Act?
- mcherm 12y agoBecause there are people of good faith who work at the NSA. They have been told by their losses that the programs they are implementing have been reviewed and are perfectly legal. If Congress makes a clear statement on the matter then that fig leaf will no longer apply.
- authatheist 12y agoIt's interesting how people supposedly vote to control the government, but then they're often rallied to beg and plead the government they're controlling through voting to please not oppress them so much. They believe that a new law with a "special advocate" sent to do stuff within the confines of the secret kangaroo-court system will somehow prevent the NSA from spying on (precious exceptionalist) Ah-mmuuhricans, even though the most sacred and supposedly inviolable law in the nation, strangely enough, fails to prevent police officers from confiscating their property. Interesting indeed..