7 ms·

I have read so many articles over the past week about various bills and efforts to further them or block them and I have no idea what's going on at this point.

I have read so many articles over the past week about various bills and efforts to further them or block them and I have no idea what's going on at this point. I still read this and do not understand. > the Senate voted on Tuesday to curtail the federal government’s sweeping surveillance > the passage... will lead to the reinstatement of government surveillance efforts Did we stop the surveillance? Did we continue it? Is this really going to do anything at all to change the culture of mass collection? Who is counting this as a win? Who is against this and who is for this?

headShrinker 11y ago
The way I understand it, the patriot act superseded existing spy legislation. While the the patriot act was not written well, it what better than what it replaced. Now instead of further shaping of the patriot act, we have a more draconian preexisting law that allows the government to spy.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jdp23 11y ago
Great questions. USA Freedom has some reforms, and shifts the collection to the telcos rather than the NSA. Then again it largely keeps the current regime in place (which makes it a win for the NSA), and it misses out on a lot of potential improvements. Some privacy and civil liberties organizations supported it; EFF and ACLU neither supported nor opposed it. Unfortunately, more aggressive reforms -- like the Surveillance State Repeal Act -- weren't on the table; and there was a lot of concern that the Senate would further weaken it. So given the makeup of the House and Senate, passing the House version unmodified after a sunset was probably the best outcome. ACLU's Jameel Jaffer says "This is the most important surveillance reform bill since 1978, and its passage is an indication that Americans are no longer willing to give the intelligence agencies a blank check." While the sunset doesn't actually have any long-term effect, IMHO it's still symbolically important: it meant that the usual tactics of "engineer a last-minute crisis" didn't work this time. And because of Rand Paul, it's actually going to be an issue in the GOP Presidential campaign -- which is huge. [Sanders voted against it as well, saying it was too weak.] So on the whole I'd say it's a win for reformers ... a small win, admittedly, and tinged with disappointment that even after Snowden we couldn't do better. Still, it's a long term battle. And frankly it's been a while since we've had even a small win.
- phaus 11y ago
  Its technically a win, but in reality its a victorious battle that has likely cost us the war. Now everyone who voted for this anemic pile of shit can go back to his/her constituents and brag about how they fought the tyranny of the NSA. This "victory" is going to prevent a more meaningful reform bill from gaining any traction in the future. Meanwhile, the NSA gets >99% of what they want.
  - tosser-004 11y ago
    What would be an acceptable level of data collection in your opinion? I've heard a lot about what people think is wrong, but what would the intelligence landscape look like if you had your way? Has the EFF stated what they would find acceptable?
    - knodi123 11y ago
      This is a much more interesting question than the one that usually gets asked, IMO. I'd be okay with mass collection of metadata, as long as searches through that data had to be limited, audited, and focused on a specific topic for a specific active investigation. And if there were a trustworthy access control and auditing process to make sure there were no more LOVINT leaks, and none of that bullshit that the FBI pulled on MLK jr. However, I don't think I would trust any agency to not find a way around that, in time. The power is too great, it's too tempting, and administrations change. Therefore, in our real world, I don't support mass un-targeted perpetual data collection, at all.
    - seanflyon 11y ago
      I like the way it worked before the Patriot Act: want to search someone's property? Get a warrant. Want to tap someone's phone? Get a warrant. Want to collect whatever private information? Get a warrant with the target's name on it.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        All of those things still require a warrant, and collecting call metadata has never required a warrant.
waffle_ss 11y ago
Sadly even if the Patriot Act were wholly removed, which it wasn't, thanks to FISA we'd still have secret laws authorizing mass surveillance due to secret court rulings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Secret_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
tehwebguy 11y ago
You are confused because NYT headline is straight up false. Nothing was even curtailed, the only difference is that now the NSA has some massive permanent power to get the exact same meta data as before but now it puts the burden on telecoms to keep it. Zero of the existing programs that Snowden revealed to the world have been ended as a result of this bill passing.
- MarkPNeyer 11y ago
  agreed; the NYT headline is a lie. the program as-is was ruled to be illegal by the supreme court, saying "congress didn't clearly authorize this level of surveillance." with this bill, congress has clearly authorized this level of surveillance.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is not the Supreme Court.
- narrator 11y ago
  This is what is known as a public/private partnership. The private organization is paid to be a mercenary for the government. Of course mercenaries are much more ethical and are much less likely to do unethical things for government money vs government employees. /s
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    Indeed - the "surveillance as a business model" corporations finally got their letter of marque. It is a very nice arrangement. Google/Facebook/telcos/etc get an official justification to continue their piracy of personal data ("we are only saving what the government requires us to save"). Meanwhile, the government gets to get all the data they want without a warrant: they simply give the appropriate corporation a wink and nudge and corporation volunteers the data.
- deelowe 11y ago
  Yep. Secret courts stay, data collection stays, nothing has changed. Well, one thing has changed. They've raised the bar yet again for becoming a telecommunications company...
yellowapple 11y ago
On one hand, the pro-surveillance folks think it goes too far in reducing the ability of the NSA to collect intelligence data. On the other hand, the anti-surveillance folks think that it doesn't go far enough, and would have much preferred the USA Freedom Act to not make it through the Senate (along with the existing lack of the Patriot Act's renewal). There aren't very many folks in the middle on this. The compelling part is that the existing surveillance programs have yet to have a significant impact on fighting terrorism; while the pro-surveillance folks flail about on "well that's taken out of context blah blah blah", I think that alone is starting to make lawmakers wonder "well, if it's not actually preventing terrorism, then why does it exist?".
shard972 11y ago
> Did we stop the surveillance? Did we continue it? Continued. Now companies just have to hand over their data to companies like fireye who will have legal immunity to handle our data and hand it off to the NSA.
bradleyjg 11y ago
This is a reasonably comprehensive description of the House bill that the Senate just agreed to: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/05/so-whats-in-the-new-usa-freedom-act-anyway/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/05/so-whats-in-the-new-usa-f... The substantive part of the post starts at the header "Bulk Collection Under Section 215"
ryguytilidie 11y ago
I think the main problem I'm having is that any law we pass won't change anything. If our government can't even follow our own constitution, how do we expect the NSA to start following the law re: spying on US citizens?
chris_wot 11y ago
Actually, mass surveillance was stopped because Congress allowed section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act to sunset (finally!) which meant that the NSA could no longer maintain their legal fiction that justified their program. Ironically they are going to restart the program because of the USA Freedom Act [1], which allows for a 180 day window within which to transition over to the new requirements. The USA Freedom Act does a few things to prevent the NSA from doing what they have been doing: Firstly, it modifies the part of the Patriot Act that allowed for free and unfettered access to business and personal documents (the "library records" provision") by changing FISA to only allow for a warrant to be granted if: (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the call detail records sought to be produced based on the specific selection term required under subparagraph (A) are relevant to such investigation; and (ii) there are facts giving rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion that such specific selection term is associated with a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (which is ironic, given this was ALWAYS the intent of FISA and I'd argue the original Patriot Act!) It also makes sure that the NSA can't go on a fishing expedition - they have to have actual grounds to capture the information. They can't grab every single record now, because the requirement is now that the warrant has to show that they are only "using call detail records with a direct connection to such specific selection term as the basis for production of a second set of call detail records". It's worse for the NSA now, because they said that they needed the records in perpetuity for data mining, because of the Act now says that they have to adopt "minimization procedures that require the prompt destruction of all call detail records produced under the order that the Government determines are not foreign intelligence information", and and they must "destroy all call detail records produced under the order as prescribed by such procedures." There's more awesome stuff in the Act, but I gotta get to work. 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/nsa-surveillance-congress_n_7496100.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/nsa-surveillance-co...
- tgb 11y ago
  Sadly, there seems to be a big difference between "determines are not foreign intelligence information" and "does not determine is foreign intelligence information." Oops, we didn't have the resources to verify that this wasn't a target, so we'll just keep it around until it's proven innocent. Or am I just being paranoid? I don't really know anything about this.
sroerick 11y ago
Functionally, this is a loss. This bill codifies the bulk collection of metadata for the first time. It gives power to the deeply corrupt telecoms, and is very similar to CISPA in its philosophy. But there's one important point: even though this reform is a complete and utter falsehood, it was caused by the programs Snowden brought to light. If Snowden hadn't come forward as a whistleblower, none of this would have happened. So while this bill is a failure, it is a massive vindication for Snowden. This bill demonstrates the massive need for whistleblower reform. This fight isn't over. But we can still win it.
- mpyne 11y ago
  Snowden managed to codify the bulk collection of metadata, help enshrine a bunch of other legal authorities, and burned international cooperation against actual bad guys to the ground in the process. But somehow this all vindicates him? I thought the ends were supposed to justify the means?
  - sroerick 11y ago
    There hasn't been any kind of surveillance reform since the Church Committee. It's true. Congress is putting on a kabuki theater show for the benefit of those who don't understand that they're lying. But the fact that they had to is a triumph, however small. Snowden revealed an illegal program. And he forced the government to pretend that they fixed it. He should be pardoned and welcomed back. At the very least, we should take steps to ensure whistleblowers are able to step forward in the future.
    - mpyne 11y ago
      Fine. We'll pardon him for the illegal program. And then convict him for the thousands of perfectly-legal programs, after we welcome him back. In the meantime, we should also take steps to ensure that whistleblowers understand the difference between whistleblowing and holding the voting and non-voting public hostage just to advance their own political agenda.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
rand334 11y ago
No, the surveillance didn't stop; it's just fucking doublespeak. One of the circuit courts declared that PATRIOT section 215 doesn't actually authorize the bulk collection. So, the NSA stopped giving a shit about PATRIOT. The FREEDOM act re-authorizes it with new loopholes/etc., namely that specific warrants are now required against specific persons, but it specifically defines that "person" also means "corporation", so they can get a "specific warrant" against "all of Verizon". There's a bit more transparency, but not enough. So, now the programs can continue, but they might need to be shifted around a bit. But it effectively authorizes mass surveillance on the American public to continue, even more directly than 215 had previously authorized it. I'll give you a clue about how painfully fucking obvious this whole thing was: - Feinstein supported it; need I say more? - It's called FREEDOM, and we all know that means its anything but, just like PATRIOT. - Rand Paul was the only one opposing it. - The NSA was fine with PATRIOT expiring and FREEDOM being enacted. - "(2) SPECIFIC SELECTION TERM- The term 'specific selection term' means a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device, used by the Government to limit the scope of the information or tangible things sought pursuant to the statute authorizing the provision of such information or tangible things to the Government.'." - (2) UNITED STATES PERSON- The term `United States person' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801). From FISA/50 U.S.C. 1801: (i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. Get it now? Jesus, people are thick. All USA FREEDOM does is expand their powers with the illusion of reducing them. All the FREEDOM act supporters are tripping fucking balls, including the EFF. I will never again donate money to the EFF. I was surprised to see an enemy in an organization whom I thought was an ally.
woah 11y ago
Big question- does the NSA even follow laws?
imron 11y ago
Did we stop the surveillance? Did we continue it? Up is down, black is white, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

headShrinker 11y ago

The way I understand it, the patriot act superseded existing spy legislation. While the the patriot act was not written well, it what better than what it replaced. Now instead of further shaping of the patriot act, we have a more draconian preexisting law that allows the government to spy.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jdp23 11y ago

Great questions. USA Freedom has some reforms, and shifts the collection to the telcos rather than the NSA. Then again it largely keeps the current regime in place (which makes it a win for the NSA), and it misses out on a lot of potential improvements. Some privacy and civil liberties organizations supported it; EFF and ACLU neither supported nor opposed it. Unfortunately, more aggressive reforms -- like the Surveillance State Repeal Act -- weren't on the table; and there was a lot of concern that the Senate would further weaken it. So given the makeup of the House and Senate, passing the House version unmodified after a sunset was probably the best outcome. ACLU's Jameel Jaffer says "This is the most important surveillance reform bill since 1978, and its passage is an indication that Americans are no longer willing to give the intelligence agencies a blank check." While the sunset doesn't actually have any long-term effect, IMHO it's still symbolically important: it meant that the usual tactics of "engineer a last-minute crisis" didn't work this time. And because of Rand Paul, it's actually going to be an issue in the GOP Presidential campaign -- which is huge. [Sanders voted against it as well, saying it was too weak.] So on the whole I'd say it's a win for reformers ... a small win, admittedly, and tinged with disappointment that even after Snowden we couldn't do better. Still, it's a long term battle. And frankly it's been a while since we've had even a small win.

phaus 11y ago
Its technically a win, but in reality its a victorious battle that has likely cost us the war. Now everyone who voted for this anemic pile of shit can go back to his/her constituents and brag about how they fought the tyranny of the NSA. This "victory" is going to prevent a more meaningful reform bill from gaining any traction in the future. Meanwhile, the NSA gets >99% of what they want.
- tosser-004 11y ago
  What would be an acceptable level of data collection in your opinion? I've heard a lot about what people think is wrong, but what would the intelligence landscape look like if you had your way? Has the EFF stated what they would find acceptable?
  - knodi123 11y ago
    This is a much more interesting question than the one that usually gets asked, IMO. I'd be okay with mass collection of metadata, as long as searches through that data had to be limited, audited, and focused on a specific topic for a specific active investigation. And if there were a trustworthy access control and auditing process to make sure there were no more LOVINT leaks, and none of that bullshit that the FBI pulled on MLK jr. However, I don't think I would trust any agency to not find a way around that, in time. The power is too great, it's too tempting, and administrations change. Therefore, in our real world, I don't support mass un-targeted perpetual data collection, at all.
  - seanflyon 11y ago
    I like the way it worked before the Patriot Act: want to search someone's property? Get a warrant. Want to tap someone's phone? Get a warrant. Want to collect whatever private information? Get a warrant with the target's name on it.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      All of those things still require a warrant, and collecting call metadata has never required a warrant.

waffle_ss 11y ago

Sadly even if the Patriot Act were wholly removed, which it wasn't, thanks to FISA we'd still have secret laws authorizing mass surveillance due to secret court rulings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Secret_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...

tehwebguy 11y ago

You are confused because NYT headline is straight up false. Nothing was even curtailed, the only difference is that now the NSA has some massive permanent power to get the exact same meta data as before but now it puts the burden on telecoms to keep it. Zero of the existing programs that Snowden revealed to the world have been ended as a result of this bill passing.

MarkPNeyer 11y ago
agreed; the NYT headline is a lie. the program as-is was ruled to be illegal by the supreme court, saying "congress didn't clearly authorize this level of surveillance." with this bill, congress has clearly authorized this level of surveillance.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is not the Supreme Court.
narrator 11y ago
This is what is known as a public/private partnership. The private organization is paid to be a mercenary for the government. Of course mercenaries are much more ethical and are much less likely to do unethical things for government money vs government employees. /s
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Indeed - the "surveillance as a business model" corporations finally got their letter of marque. It is a very nice arrangement. Google/Facebook/telcos/etc get an official justification to continue their piracy of personal data ("we are only saving what the government requires us to save"). Meanwhile, the government gets to get all the data they want without a warrant: they simply give the appropriate corporation a wink and nudge and corporation volunteers the data.
deelowe 11y ago
Yep. Secret courts stay, data collection stays, nothing has changed. Well, one thing has changed. They've raised the bar yet again for becoming a telecommunications company...

yellowapple 11y ago

On one hand, the pro-surveillance folks think it goes too far in reducing the ability of the NSA to collect intelligence data. On the other hand, the anti-surveillance folks think that it doesn't go far enough, and would have much preferred the USA Freedom Act to not make it through the Senate (along with the existing lack of the Patriot Act's renewal). There aren't very many folks in the middle on this. The compelling part is that the existing surveillance programs have yet to have a significant impact on fighting terrorism; while the pro-surveillance folks flail about on "well that's taken out of context blah blah blah", I think that alone is starting to make lawmakers wonder "well, if it's not actually preventing terrorism, then why does it exist?".

shard972 11y ago

> Did we stop the surveillance? Did we continue it? Continued. Now companies just have to hand over their data to companies like fireye who will have legal immunity to handle our data and hand it off to the NSA.

bradleyjg 11y ago

This is a reasonably comprehensive description of the House bill that the Senate just agreed to: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/05/so-whats-in-the-new-usa-freedom-act-anyway/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/05/so-whats-in-the-new-usa-f... The substantive part of the post starts at the header "Bulk Collection Under Section 215"

ryguytilidie 11y ago

I think the main problem I'm having is that any law we pass won't change anything. If our government can't even follow our own constitution, how do we expect the NSA to start following the law re: spying on US citizens?

chris_wot 11y ago

Actually, mass surveillance was stopped because Congress allowed section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act to sunset (finally!) which meant that the NSA could no longer maintain their legal fiction that justified their program. Ironically they are going to restart the program because of the USA Freedom Act [1], which allows for a 180 day window within which to transition over to the new requirements. The USA Freedom Act does a few things to prevent the NSA from doing what they have been doing: Firstly, it modifies the part of the Patriot Act that allowed for free and unfettered access to business and personal documents (the "library records" provision") by changing FISA to only allow for a warrant to be granted if: (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the call detail records sought to be produced based on the specific selection term required under subparagraph (A) are relevant to such investigation; and (ii) there are facts giving rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion that such specific selection term is associated with a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (which is ironic, given this was ALWAYS the intent of FISA and I'd argue the original Patriot Act!) It also makes sure that the NSA can't go on a fishing expedition - they have to have actual grounds to capture the information. They can't grab every single record now, because the requirement is now that the warrant has to show that they are only "using call detail records with a direct connection to such specific selection term as the basis for production of a second set of call detail records". It's worse for the NSA now, because they said that they needed the records in perpetuity for data mining, because of the Act now says that they have to adopt "minimization procedures that require the prompt destruction of all call detail records produced under the order that the Government determines are not foreign intelligence information", and and they must "destroy all call detail records produced under the order as prescribed by such procedures." There's more awesome stuff in the Act, but I gotta get to work. 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/nsa-surveillance-congress_n_7496100.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/nsa-surveillance-co...

tgb 11y ago
Sadly, there seems to be a big difference between "determines are not foreign intelligence information" and "does not determine is foreign intelligence information." Oops, we didn't have the resources to verify that this wasn't a target, so we'll just keep it around until it's proven innocent. Or am I just being paranoid? I don't really know anything about this.

sroerick 11y ago

Functionally, this is a loss. This bill codifies the bulk collection of metadata for the first time. It gives power to the deeply corrupt telecoms, and is very similar to CISPA in its philosophy. But there's one important point: even though this reform is a complete and utter falsehood, it was caused by the programs Snowden brought to light. If Snowden hadn't come forward as a whistleblower, none of this would have happened. So while this bill is a failure, it is a massive vindication for Snowden. This bill demonstrates the massive need for whistleblower reform. This fight isn't over. But we can still win it.

mpyne 11y ago
Snowden managed to codify the bulk collection of metadata, help enshrine a bunch of other legal authorities, and burned international cooperation against actual bad guys to the ground in the process. But somehow this all vindicates him? I thought the ends were supposed to justify the means?
- sroerick 11y ago
  There hasn't been any kind of surveillance reform since the Church Committee. It's true. Congress is putting on a kabuki theater show for the benefit of those who don't understand that they're lying. But the fact that they had to is a triumph, however small. Snowden revealed an illegal program. And he forced the government to pretend that they fixed it. He should be pardoned and welcomed back. At the very least, we should take steps to ensure whistleblowers are able to step forward in the future.
  - mpyne 11y ago
    Fine. We'll pardon him for the illegal program. And then convict him for the thousands of perfectly-legal programs, after we welcome him back. In the meantime, we should also take steps to ensure that whistleblowers understand the difference between whistleblowing and holding the voting and non-voting public hostage just to advance their own political agenda.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago

rand334 11y ago

No, the surveillance didn't stop; it's just fucking doublespeak. One of the circuit courts declared that PATRIOT section 215 doesn't actually authorize the bulk collection. So, the NSA stopped giving a shit about PATRIOT. The FREEDOM act re-authorizes it with new loopholes/etc., namely that specific warrants are now required against specific persons, but it specifically defines that "person" also means "corporation", so they can get a "specific warrant" against "all of Verizon". There's a bit more transparency, but not enough. So, now the programs can continue, but they might need to be shifted around a bit. But it effectively authorizes mass surveillance on the American public to continue, even more directly than 215 had previously authorized it. I'll give you a clue about how painfully fucking obvious this whole thing was: - Feinstein supported it; need I say more? - It's called FREEDOM, and we all know that means its anything but, just like PATRIOT. - Rand Paul was the only one opposing it. - The NSA was fine with PATRIOT expiring and FREEDOM being enacted. - "(2) SPECIFIC SELECTION TERM- The term 'specific selection term' means a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device, used by the Government to limit the scope of the information or tangible things sought pursuant to the statute authorizing the provision of such information or tangible things to the Government.'." - (2) UNITED STATES PERSON- The term `United States person' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801). From FISA/50 U.S.C. 1801: (i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. Get it now? Jesus, people are thick. All USA FREEDOM does is expand their powers with the illusion of reducing them. All the FREEDOM act supporters are tripping fucking balls, including the EFF. I will never again donate money to the EFF. I was surprised to see an enemy in an organization whom I thought was an ally.

woah 11y ago

Big question- does the NSA even follow laws?

imron 11y ago

Did we stop the surveillance? Did we continue it? Up is down, black is white, we've always been at war with Eastasia.