5 ms·

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

by 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.
      - themartorana 11y ago
        Maybe. That's one of the problems, that the NSA is trying to get everything that hasn't explicitly been labeled as private to be considered public - from phone metadata to emails stored in the cloud. Although that said, they read ALL emails, and have said [0] that they require no authorization or warrant to listen to your calls, read your text messages, and read your email. So no, without explicit reigning in, those things the GP lists are not all as they once were. [0] http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u-s-phone-calls/ http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents...
      - Retric 11y ago
        The NSA does not need a warrant to track people outside the USA which is more or less it's job. It can then trade that information with a foreign governments for there collection of US suspects without a warrant. From 1946: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement "For example, the British newspaper The Independent reported back in 1996 that the U.S. National Security Agency "taps UK phones" at the request of the British intelligence agency MI5, thus allowing British agents to evade restrictive limitations on domestic telephone tapping.[53]"
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jdp23 11y ago
And, here's EFF's statement: Technology users everywhere should celebrate, knowing that the NSA will be a little more hampered in its surveillance overreach, and both the NSA and the FISA court will be more transparent and accountable than it was before the USA Freedom Act. It’s no secret that we wanted more ... Even so, we’re celebrating. We’re celebrating because, however small, this bill marks a day that some said could never happen—a day when the NSA saw its surveillance power reduced by Congress. And we’re hoping that this could be a turning point in the fight to rein in the NSA.... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/usa-freedom-act-passes-what-we-celebrate-what-we-mourn-and-where-we-go-here https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/usa-freedom-act-passes...
- d23 11y ago
  I suppose it's too much to ask that we actually congratulate the people that represent us on doing something positive. Maybe we could all dial the cynicism back a bit too. Not directed at you; just a general thought.
higherpurpose 11y ago
I may be wrong but didn't the House actually want to pass a rather strong version of the USA Freedom Act and then the House Committee drastically watered it down before sending it to the Senate? If that is true then it's most disappointing. Couldn't the House members have done something about that (just calling for a replacement of the Committee members, I guess?). The House Committee doing something like that sounds quite undemocratic, because the House Representatives passed a significantly different bill and then these "middle-men" intervened to kill it.
- jdp23 11y ago
  That's kind of what happened last year. Here's EFF's discussion from May 2014. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gutted-usa-freedom-act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gu... This year, the House Intelligence Committee worked with the administration, the intelligence community, and privacy advocates to come up with a compromise "USA Freedom" that everybody could live with. The House Judiciary Committee wanted to strengthen it but was concerned that would lead to the compromise falling apart and so didn't amend. The House then passed it, fairly overwhelmingly (although 50ish representatives who voted against wrote a letter to the Senate saying it should be stronger). All the amendments failed in the Senate, so they passed it as well. And yeah, it's really disappointing. The leadership in both the House and Senate has a huge amount of control over what bills make it to the floor, and they defer to the Intelligence committees (who tend to overwhelmingly support the NSA) so the cards are strongly stacked against reformers. And this isn't just a party-line issue; when the Democrats were in control, it was a very similar dynamic.
tootie 11y ago
I think that aside from the reforms that were left on the table, it's another step to be exlicit about what's allowed and what isn't. For the past 14 years, the view from within the executive was that if no one has said one way or the other, let's just do it until we get caught. Now, we're zeroing in on an explicit set of rules and parameters so there's less ambiguity.
snarfy 11y ago
> USA Freedom has some reforms, and shifts the collection to the telcos rather than the NSA. It also shifts the legal liability, which I believe was the purpose. I don't know if I would call this a win.
rand334 11y ago
See my comment above. It's not "symbolically a good thing"--the intelligence community wanted this. It just expands their powers. It's only symbolic effect is that now, the average American not paying attention, actually things that we've made reform and can stop caring about it. This is a fucking sad day. I'm disappointed in everyone who is saying this is anything but a terrible thing. https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/05/01/and_then_i_told_them.jpg?x=648&y=429&crop=1 https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/05/01/and_then_i_told_them.jpg?x...

by jdp23 11y ago

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.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      Maybe. That's one of the problems, that the NSA is trying to get everything that hasn't explicitly been labeled as private to be considered public - from phone metadata to emails stored in the cloud. Although that said, they read ALL emails, and have said [0] that they require no authorization or warrant to listen to your calls, read your text messages, and read your email. So no, without explicit reigning in, those things the GP lists are not all as they once were. [0] http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u-s-phone-calls/ http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents...
    - Retric 11y ago
      The NSA does not need a warrant to track people outside the USA which is more or less it's job. It can then trade that information with a foreign governments for there collection of US suspects without a warrant. From 1946: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement "For example, the British newspaper The Independent reported back in 1996 that the U.S. National Security Agency "taps UK phones" at the request of the British intelligence agency MI5, thus allowing British agents to evade restrictive limitations on domestic telephone tapping.[53]"
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jdp23 11y ago

And, here's EFF's statement: Technology users everywhere should celebrate, knowing that the NSA will be a little more hampered in its surveillance overreach, and both the NSA and the FISA court will be more transparent and accountable than it was before the USA Freedom Act. It’s no secret that we wanted more ... Even so, we’re celebrating. We’re celebrating because, however small, this bill marks a day that some said could never happen—a day when the NSA saw its surveillance power reduced by Congress. And we’re hoping that this could be a turning point in the fight to rein in the NSA.... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/usa-freedom-act-passes-what-we-celebrate-what-we-mourn-and-where-we-go-here https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/usa-freedom-act-passes...

d23 11y ago
I suppose it's too much to ask that we actually congratulate the people that represent us on doing something positive. Maybe we could all dial the cynicism back a bit too. Not directed at you; just a general thought.

higherpurpose 11y ago

I may be wrong but didn't the House actually want to pass a rather strong version of the USA Freedom Act and then the House Committee drastically watered it down before sending it to the Senate? If that is true then it's most disappointing. Couldn't the House members have done something about that (just calling for a replacement of the Committee members, I guess?). The House Committee doing something like that sounds quite undemocratic, because the House Representatives passed a significantly different bill and then these "middle-men" intervened to kill it.

jdp23 11y ago
That's kind of what happened last year. Here's EFF's discussion from May 2014. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gutted-usa-freedom-act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gu... This year, the House Intelligence Committee worked with the administration, the intelligence community, and privacy advocates to come up with a compromise "USA Freedom" that everybody could live with. The House Judiciary Committee wanted to strengthen it but was concerned that would lead to the compromise falling apart and so didn't amend. The House then passed it, fairly overwhelmingly (although 50ish representatives who voted against wrote a letter to the Senate saying it should be stronger). All the amendments failed in the Senate, so they passed it as well. And yeah, it's really disappointing. The leadership in both the House and Senate has a huge amount of control over what bills make it to the floor, and they defer to the Intelligence committees (who tend to overwhelmingly support the NSA) so the cards are strongly stacked against reformers. And this isn't just a party-line issue; when the Democrats were in control, it was a very similar dynamic.

tootie 11y ago

I think that aside from the reforms that were left on the table, it's another step to be exlicit about what's allowed and what isn't. For the past 14 years, the view from within the executive was that if no one has said one way or the other, let's just do it until we get caught. Now, we're zeroing in on an explicit set of rules and parameters so there's less ambiguity.

snarfy 11y ago

> USA Freedom has some reforms, and shifts the collection to the telcos rather than the NSA. It also shifts the legal liability, which I believe was the purpose. I don't know if I would call this a win.

rand334 11y ago

See my comment above. It's not "symbolically a good thing"--the intelligence community wanted this. It just expands their powers. It's only symbolic effect is that now, the average American not paying attention, actually things that we've made reform and can stop caring about it. This is a fucking sad day. I'm disappointed in everyone who is saying this is anything but a terrible thing. https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/05/01/and_then_i_told_them.jpg?x=648&y=429&crop=1 https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/05/01/and_then_i_told_them.jpg?x...