10 ms·

H.R.4681 - Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015

171 points by jborden13 12y ago

rjsamson 12y ago
SOPA 2.0? I don't see how the linked language has anything to do with what SOPA was - this has to do with retention policies for incidentally acquired communications during intelligence gathering activities - specifically putting limits on how long such communications may be retained.
- mtmail 12y ago
  I think the confusion is if "acquisition" in "shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications" includes spying. I don't think it does.
  - rjsamson 12y ago
    I don't think so either. The impression I get is that this covers retention policies for communications incidentally acquired during intelligence operations. A (perhaps poor) example might be, a raid on safehouse that yields hard drive that contains email records, where some of those emails are unrelated communications with a US citizen - it sounds like records like that would now be destroyed after 5 years if there is no specified need to keep them. Sound right?
jimktrains2 12y ago
Wait, why couldn't you simply link to the bill or the petition linked to in the imgur post?
- rjsamson 12y ago
  Yeah, that's really annoying - text is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4681/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4681...
  - sctb 12y ago
    Thanks, we changed it from http://imgur.com/gallery/h47E4Bj http://imgur.com/gallery/h47E4Bj and updated the title.
tootie 12y ago
This post was murdered on reddit already. This is no SOPA 2 in any way shape or form nor is it really any sort of new authority at all. It just places boundaries on retention of collection communications. It's a smallish curb on existing authority.
- rjsamson 12y ago
  Yup. Also, this bill actually passed the house in May of this year.
  - Cyther606 12y ago
    The offending Section 309 was added on _Tuesday night_. Congressman Justin Amash explains: When I learned that the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2015 was being rushed to the floor for a vote—with little debate and only a voice vote expected (i.e., simply declared “passed” with almost nobody in the room)—I asked my legislative staff to quickly review the bill for unusual language. What they discovered is one of the most egregious sections of law I’ve encountered during my time as a representative: It grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American. On Wednesday afternoon, I went to the House floor to demand a roll call vote on the bill so that everyone’s vote would have to be recorded. I also sent the letter below to every representative. With more time to spread the word, we would have stopped this bill, which passed 325-100. Thanks to the 99 other representatives—44 Republicans and 55 Democrats—who voted to protect our rights and uphold the Constitution. And thanks to my incredibly talented staff. ### Block New Spying on U.S. Citizens: Vote “NO” on H.R. 4681 Dear Colleague: The intelligence reauthorization bill, which the House will vote on today, contains a troubling new provision that for the first time statutorily authorizes spying on U.S. citizens without legal process. Last night, the Senate passed an amended version of the intelligence reauthorization bill with a new Sec. 309—one the House never has considered. Sec. 309 authorizes “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of nonpublic communications, including those to and from U.S. persons. The section contemplates that those private communications of Americans, obtained without a court order, may be transferred to domestic law enforcement for criminal investigations. To be clear, Sec. 309 provides the first statutory authority for the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of U.S. persons’ private communications obtained without legal process such as a court order or a subpoena. The administration currently may conduct such surveillance under a claim of executive authority, such as E.O. 12333. However, Congress never has approved of using executive authority in that way to capture and use Americans’ private telephone records, electronic communications, or cloud data. Supporters of Sec. 309 claim that the provision actually reins in the executive branch’s power to retain Americans’ private communications. It is true that Sec. 309 includes exceedingly weak limits on the executive’s retention of Americans’ communications. With many exceptions, the provision requires the executive to dispose of Americans’ communications within five years of acquiring them—although, as HPSCI admits, the executive branch already follows procedures along these lines. In exchange for the data retention requirements that the executive already follows, Sec. 309 provides a novel statutory basis for the executive branch’s capture and use of Americans’ private communications. The Senate inserted the provision into the intelligence reauthorization bill late last night. That is no way for Congress to address the sensitive, private information of our constituents—especially when we are asked to expand our government’s surveillance powers. I urge you to join me in voting “no” on H.R. 4681, the intelligence reauthorization bill, when it comes before the House today. Justin Amash Member of Congress [1]: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=812569822115759&id=173604349345646&refid=17 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=812569822115759&...
jamiesonbecker 12y ago
maybe this is what it's referring to? Congress 'Endorses' Warrantless Collection, Storage of U.S. Communications http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/11/congress-endorses-warrantless-collection-storage-of-us-communications http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/11/congress-endo...
yawaworht_ 12y ago
What it applies to: any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order (including FISA courts), subpoena, or similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a US person. What it does: permits the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of non-public communications indefinitely, unless any parties are US persons and the communication is NOT encrypted, in which case they can only be retained for 5 years. (There are some other exemptions to this 5 year rule.) Note that "incidentally acquired" appears only in the section title. The main question here for me is what exactly this applies to. Is "any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized" blanket permission to collect anything?
- Cushman 12y ago
  In the most literal reading, the phrase "shall permit" refers to the required "procedures", which are themselves "approved by the Attorney General"... So that might be "Anything, subject to the discretion of the AG"? Or does that actually require the AG to approve procedures which "shall permit the acquisition" of "[private] communication to or from a United States person" during "any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized"?
joesmo 12y ago
So this basically removes the limitation on how long encrypted intercepted communications (simply any encrypted communication at this point) can be retained. I doubt any limits were followed in the past, but this makes it officially disturbing that one's encrypted communications could potentially be used against him any number of years down the line by any future regime, especially after technology makes cracking such encryption feasible.
- fleitz 12y ago
  When you use the word regime you already know what actions you should take. Leave now, while you still can, don't debate the wording of acts, especially when the regime starts to pass legislation increasing barriers to entry for leaving. Last year it was $400 to get out, now it's $2400, eventually when everyone smart wants to leave they'll put up a wall. Get another passport before everyone else wants one and you have to wait in line.
  - cryoshon 12y ago
    I agree with you, but where are you getting your numbers on the "cost of leaving"? I already have a passport, but if that cost is going up at such a ridiculous rate, it's really unacceptable.
    - getsat 12y ago
      The stated numbers are the costs of renouncing your citizenship. The state department drastically increased the cost last year.
      - bradleysmith 12y ago
        Whoa. Link for the lazy: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/231128.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/231128.htm
  - joesmo 12y ago
    Don't forget the expatriation tax: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expatriation-Tax http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expat...
snowwrestler 12y ago
SOPA was the Stop Online Piracy Act and had nothing to do with intelligence agencies collecting and storing data. The objections to SOPA were centered around the impact it would have on global DNS resolution. This is not Reddit. I don't think we should sink to posts with grossly inaccurate titles that link to a JPG instead of to the actual bill text itself, or at least a piece of writing covering or analyzing it.
cryoshon 12y ago
Yay, more fascism! Now, anything that wasn't explicitly within the law before is now within the boundary of the law, and thus is legal. This opens up all sorts of new avenues for abuse, while closing none. It also is one more statute that will need to be eventually repealed. Predictably, defenders of the bill are trying to pass it off as more oversight with their doublespeak. I am really tired of this country and its bullshit. We've slid toward totalitarianism every single year for quite a few years running now. Voting has been useless in the many elections I have participated in. When will people wake up and demand change?
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  > Voting has been useless in the many elections I have participated in. When will people wake up and demand change? If voting is "useless" it makes it impossible to demand change since voting is how we enact change in a democracy.
  - scott_karana 12y ago
    Voting is not the exclusive way to make change in a democracy, even if it's the preferred...
    - commentzorro 12y ago
      We have a second amendment in the constitution for exactly this reason. The pen may be mightier than the sword but sometimes you must write with the blood of your oppressors just to begin to be heard.
      - scott_karana 12y ago
        Honestly, I meant mass-protests, blocking of work, passive resistance, and the like. I don't think the situation is bad enough to warrant violent revolt (yet).
      - frostmatthew 12y ago
        > We have a second amendment in the constitution for exactly this reason. No. We have a second amendment to maintain a "well regulated militia" to protect the state - not to make it easier to overthrow it.
ameister14 12y ago
Relevant piece to this discussion is SEC. 309. PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS. Personally, I have an issue with paragraph 3 section B as follows: (ii) the communication is reasonably believed to constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law enforcement agency; (iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning; I don't know enough about this, so will someone more educated in this field tell me: am I wrong, or does the exception in ii apply to the way law enforcement currently uses State intelligence services to get around warrants? Does this change anything?
tracker1 12y ago
How about a campaign to "Vote No on H.R.4681" ?!?
graycat 12y ago
Parts of this thread got me all up on my hind legs afraid of fascist Big Brother of 1984 with sound recorders hidden in the walls of my bedroom, keystroke grabbing on my computer, brainwave recorders in stealth drones flying overhead at 100,000 feet capturing my thoughts, etc. Yes, while my usual excuse has long been, and apparently been confirmed, that the US Federal Government is too incompetent to do much to me, or really even know about me (if they only knew what I really think of them!), this thread got me worried again. So, I just followed the link to the bill. There I got the text version, in some small, light font tough to read in Firefox on my screen and with the warning that actually it was not accurate. So I took the HTML version. Soon, much of the text was off the right side my screen with no horizontal scroll bars. Gee, is there some CSS keyword to suppress the scroll bars? My Web pages have both horizontal and vertical scroll bars, and I entered nothing about scroll bars and just took defaults. So, I told Firefox to reduce screen magnification until all the text characters fit my screen, and then all I had were characters about the size of two pixels each with each line of text just some broken horizontal line totally impossible to read. Great work Congress: You found yet another way to implement the now famous Pelosi "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"! So, third try, I took the PDF version. Okay, magnifying to 185%, I got something readable. Looking at the table of contents for the really deep, down, fascist dirty stuff, right away (Adobe Acrobat has a search feature!), I found: "H. R. 4681—5 SEC. 302. RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any intelligence activity which is not otherwise authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United States." Okay, sounds not so bad. Maybe they just put that in there so that it could be removed in a conference committee with all that really deep, dirty, fascist stuff elsewhere now enabled? They are really smart enough to be that tricky? Naaaaw ...! Congress? The US Congress I have long watched? Naaaaw. So, from that paragraph, apparently this bill doesn't authorize even more microphones in the walls of my bedroom, more keystroke captures, more grabbing of my PGP private key (once I start using PGP), my software to find some 50,000 or so (don't want to be too exact here!) decimal digit prime numbers, assuming I don't encounter a prime gap, etc.! Ah, I should not have said that and, instead, should have let the NSA know that, really, I've long been doing my super hush-hush communications via the subspace radio flip phone I got from Captain Kirk! Once he was parked on my front lawn for three weeks, but no one but me noticed because he was using a Romulan cloaking device. Maybe I'm too easily fooled, but, lazy me, I'm back down off my hind legs now no longer afraid of being subject to "rectal feeding", etc. I mean, were my thoughts that former NSA head Michael Hayden looked too much like Elmer Fudd a reason for me to have 1 trillion exabytes of data kept on me in some flat building covering 25% of, what is it, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, Utah, somewhere out there? So, was that the reason HP worked out how to store one bit per oxygen ion, just so that the NSA could store what I really thought of them? Naaaaw! Joking aside, the section I quoted does seem to say that the bill doesn't make things worse.

171 points by jborden13 12y ago

SOPA 2.0? I don't see how the linked language has anything to do with what SOPA was - this has to do with retention policies for incidentally acquired communications during intelligence gathering activities - specifically putting limits on how long such communications may be retained.

mtmail 12y ago
I think the confusion is if "acquisition" in "shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications" includes spying. I don't think it does.
- rjsamson 12y ago
  I don't think so either. The impression I get is that this covers retention policies for communications incidentally acquired during intelligence operations. A (perhaps poor) example might be, a raid on safehouse that yields hard drive that contains email records, where some of those emails are unrelated communications with a US citizen - it sounds like records like that would now be destroyed after 5 years if there is no specified need to keep them. Sound right?

jimktrains2 12y ago

Wait, why couldn't you simply link to the bill or the petition linked to in the imgur post?

rjsamson 12y ago
Yeah, that's really annoying - text is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4681/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4681...
- sctb 12y ago
  Thanks, we changed it from http://imgur.com/gallery/h47E4Bj http://imgur.com/gallery/h47E4Bj and updated the title.

tootie 12y ago

This post was murdered on reddit already. This is no SOPA 2 in any way shape or form nor is it really any sort of new authority at all. It just places boundaries on retention of collection communications. It's a smallish curb on existing authority.

rjsamson 12y ago
Yup. Also, this bill actually passed the house in May of this year.
- Cyther606 12y ago
  The offending Section 309 was added on _Tuesday night_. Congressman Justin Amash explains: When I learned that the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2015 was being rushed to the floor for a vote—with little debate and only a voice vote expected (i.e., simply declared “passed” with almost nobody in the room)—I asked my legislative staff to quickly review the bill for unusual language. What they discovered is one of the most egregious sections of law I’ve encountered during my time as a representative: It grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American. On Wednesday afternoon, I went to the House floor to demand a roll call vote on the bill so that everyone’s vote would have to be recorded. I also sent the letter below to every representative. With more time to spread the word, we would have stopped this bill, which passed 325-100. Thanks to the 99 other representatives—44 Republicans and 55 Democrats—who voted to protect our rights and uphold the Constitution. And thanks to my incredibly talented staff. ### Block New Spying on U.S. Citizens: Vote “NO” on H.R. 4681 Dear Colleague: The intelligence reauthorization bill, which the House will vote on today, contains a troubling new provision that for the first time statutorily authorizes spying on U.S. citizens without legal process. Last night, the Senate passed an amended version of the intelligence reauthorization bill with a new Sec. 309—one the House never has considered. Sec. 309 authorizes “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of nonpublic communications, including those to and from U.S. persons. The section contemplates that those private communications of Americans, obtained without a court order, may be transferred to domestic law enforcement for criminal investigations. To be clear, Sec. 309 provides the first statutory authority for the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of U.S. persons’ private communications obtained without legal process such as a court order or a subpoena. The administration currently may conduct such surveillance under a claim of executive authority, such as E.O. 12333. However, Congress never has approved of using executive authority in that way to capture and use Americans’ private telephone records, electronic communications, or cloud data. Supporters of Sec. 309 claim that the provision actually reins in the executive branch’s power to retain Americans’ private communications. It is true that Sec. 309 includes exceedingly weak limits on the executive’s retention of Americans’ communications. With many exceptions, the provision requires the executive to dispose of Americans’ communications within five years of acquiring them—although, as HPSCI admits, the executive branch already follows procedures along these lines. In exchange for the data retention requirements that the executive already follows, Sec. 309 provides a novel statutory basis for the executive branch’s capture and use of Americans’ private communications. The Senate inserted the provision into the intelligence reauthorization bill late last night. That is no way for Congress to address the sensitive, private information of our constituents—especially when we are asked to expand our government’s surveillance powers. I urge you to join me in voting “no” on H.R. 4681, the intelligence reauthorization bill, when it comes before the House today. Justin Amash Member of Congress [1]: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=812569822115759&id=173604349345646&refid=17 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=812569822115759&...

jamiesonbecker 12y ago

maybe this is what it's referring to? Congress 'Endorses' Warrantless Collection, Storage of U.S. Communications http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/11/congress-endorses-warrantless-collection-storage-of-us-communications http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/11/congress-endo...

yawaworht_ 12y ago

What it applies to: any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order (including FISA courts), subpoena, or similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a US person. What it does: permits the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of non-public communications indefinitely, unless any parties are US persons and the communication is NOT encrypted, in which case they can only be retained for 5 years. (There are some other exemptions to this 5 year rule.) Note that "incidentally acquired" appears only in the section title. The main question here for me is what exactly this applies to. Is "any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized" blanket permission to collect anything?

Cushman 12y ago
In the most literal reading, the phrase "shall permit" refers to the required "procedures", which are themselves "approved by the Attorney General"... So that might be "Anything, subject to the discretion of the AG"? Or does that actually require the AG to approve procedures which "shall permit the acquisition" of "[private] communication to or from a United States person" during "any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized"?

joesmo 12y ago

So this basically removes the limitation on how long encrypted intercepted communications (simply any encrypted communication at this point) can be retained. I doubt any limits were followed in the past, but this makes it officially disturbing that one's encrypted communications could potentially be used against him any number of years down the line by any future regime, especially after technology makes cracking such encryption feasible.

fleitz 12y ago
When you use the word regime you already know what actions you should take. Leave now, while you still can, don't debate the wording of acts, especially when the regime starts to pass legislation increasing barriers to entry for leaving. Last year it was $400 to get out, now it's $2400, eventually when everyone smart wants to leave they'll put up a wall. Get another passport before everyone else wants one and you have to wait in line.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  I agree with you, but where are you getting your numbers on the "cost of leaving"? I already have a passport, but if that cost is going up at such a ridiculous rate, it's really unacceptable.
  - getsat 12y ago
    The stated numbers are the costs of renouncing your citizenship. The state department drastically increased the cost last year.
    - bradleysmith 12y ago
      Whoa. Link for the lazy: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/231128.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/231128.htm
- joesmo 12y ago
  Don't forget the expatriation tax: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expatriation-Tax http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expat...

snowwrestler 12y ago

SOPA was the Stop Online Piracy Act and had nothing to do with intelligence agencies collecting and storing data. The objections to SOPA were centered around the impact it would have on global DNS resolution. This is not Reddit. I don't think we should sink to posts with grossly inaccurate titles that link to a JPG instead of to the actual bill text itself, or at least a piece of writing covering or analyzing it.

cryoshon 12y ago

Yay, more fascism! Now, anything that wasn't explicitly within the law before is now within the boundary of the law, and thus is legal. This opens up all sorts of new avenues for abuse, while closing none. It also is one more statute that will need to be eventually repealed. Predictably, defenders of the bill are trying to pass it off as more oversight with their doublespeak. I am really tired of this country and its bullshit. We've slid toward totalitarianism every single year for quite a few years running now. Voting has been useless in the many elections I have participated in. When will people wake up and demand change?

frostmatthew 12y ago
> Voting has been useless in the many elections I have participated in. When will people wake up and demand change? If voting is "useless" it makes it impossible to demand change since voting is how we enact change in a democracy.
- scott_karana 12y ago
  Voting is not the exclusive way to make change in a democracy, even if it's the preferred...
  - commentzorro 12y ago
    We have a second amendment in the constitution for exactly this reason. The pen may be mightier than the sword but sometimes you must write with the blood of your oppressors just to begin to be heard.
    - scott_karana 12y ago
      Honestly, I meant mass-protests, blocking of work, passive resistance, and the like. I don't think the situation is bad enough to warrant violent revolt (yet).
    - frostmatthew 12y ago
      > We have a second amendment in the constitution for exactly this reason. No. We have a second amendment to maintain a "well regulated militia" to protect the state - not to make it easier to overthrow it.

ameister14 12y ago

Relevant piece to this discussion is SEC. 309. PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS. Personally, I have an issue with paragraph 3 section B as follows: (ii) the communication is reasonably believed to constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law enforcement agency; (iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning; I don't know enough about this, so will someone more educated in this field tell me: am I wrong, or does the exception in ii apply to the way law enforcement currently uses State intelligence services to get around warrants? Does this change anything?

tracker1 12y ago

How about a campaign to "Vote No on H.R.4681" ?!?

graycat 12y ago

Parts of this thread got me all up on my hind legs afraid of fascist Big Brother of 1984 with sound recorders hidden in the walls of my bedroom, keystroke grabbing on my computer, brainwave recorders in stealth drones flying overhead at 100,000 feet capturing my thoughts, etc. Yes, while my usual excuse has long been, and apparently been confirmed, that the US Federal Government is too incompetent to do much to me, or really even know about me (if they only knew what I really think of them!), this thread got me worried again. So, I just followed the link to the bill. There I got the text version, in some small, light font tough to read in Firefox on my screen and with the warning that actually it was not accurate. So I took the HTML version. Soon, much of the text was off the right side my screen with no horizontal scroll bars. Gee, is there some CSS keyword to suppress the scroll bars? My Web pages have both horizontal and vertical scroll bars, and I entered nothing about scroll bars and just took defaults. So, I told Firefox to reduce screen magnification until all the text characters fit my screen, and then all I had were characters about the size of two pixels each with each line of text just some broken horizontal line totally impossible to read. Great work Congress: You found yet another way to implement the now famous Pelosi "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"! So, third try, I took the PDF version. Okay, magnifying to 185%, I got something readable. Looking at the table of contents for the really deep, down, fascist dirty stuff, right away (Adobe Acrobat has a search feature!), I found: "H. R. 4681—5 SEC. 302. RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any intelligence activity which is not otherwise authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United States." Okay, sounds not so bad. Maybe they just put that in there so that it could be removed in a conference committee with all that really deep, dirty, fascist stuff elsewhere now enabled? They are really smart enough to be that tricky? Naaaaw ...! Congress? The US Congress I have long watched? Naaaaw. So, from that paragraph, apparently this bill doesn't authorize even more microphones in the walls of my bedroom, more keystroke captures, more grabbing of my PGP private key (once I start using PGP), my software to find some 50,000 or so (don't want to be too exact here!) decimal digit prime numbers, assuming I don't encounter a prime gap, etc.! Ah, I should not have said that and, instead, should have let the NSA know that, really, I've long been doing my super hush-hush communications via the subspace radio flip phone I got from Captain Kirk! Once he was parked on my front lawn for three weeks, but no one but me noticed because he was using a Romulan cloaking device. Maybe I'm too easily fooled, but, lazy me, I'm back down off my hind legs now no longer afraid of being subject to "rectal feeding", etc. I mean, were my thoughts that former NSA head Michael Hayden looked too much like Elmer Fudd a reason for me to have 1 trillion exabytes of data kept on me in some flat building covering 25% of, what is it, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, Utah, somewhere out there? So, was that the reason HP worked out how to store one bit per oxygen ion, just so that the NSA could store what I really thought of them? Naaaaw! Joking aside, the section I quoted does seem to say that the bill doesn't make things worse.