Rep. Jared Polis Calls For 24 Hour Surveillance On Senator Marco Rubio

from the because-polis-is-awesome dept

Rep. Jared Polis has a bit of a history of making hilarious, but incredibly on point, sarcastic and satirical suggestions in response to government officials saying something stupid. Last year, he asked the Treasury Department to ban dollar bills after Senator Joe Manchin asked the Treasury Department to ban Bitcoin. Polis, of course, took the same arguments Manchin used against Bitcoin and highlighted how dollar bills had the same characteristics.

His latest move is in response to Senator Marco Rubio’s ridiculous and clueless call for greater levels of mass surveillance of Americans. Rubio calls for new laws to force tech companies to help the government spy on everyone and also a permanent extension of the controversial Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the part of the law that was twisted by the DOJ and the NSA to pretend it means they can demand every phone record on every American because they might be able to sniff through it all and find something interesting.

In response, Polis has asked the US Intelligence Community to begin “24 hour monitoring” of Senator Rubio:

?If Senator Rubio believes that millions of innocent Americans should be subject to intrusive and unconstitutional government surveillance, surely he would have no objections to the government monitoring his own actions and conversations,? said Rep. Polis. ?Senator Rubio is asking for American technology companies to ?cooperate with authorities,? so I believe he will have no objection to authorities being given access to his electronic correspondence and metadata.  Maybe after his 2016 strategy documents are accidentally caught up in a government data grab, he?ll rethink the use of mass surveillance.?

Rubio?s op-ed called for ?a permanent extension of the counterterrorism tools our intelligence community relies on? and said that the tactics were ?legally and painstakingly established.? This is in stark contrast with the conclusions of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which found the data collection practices to be illegal, saying the Patriot Act ?does not provide an adequate basis to support this program.?

This new focus on Senator Rubio shouldn?t require any additional legislation, as Senators have already been included in intelligence agency monitoring.

Nicely done. While he’s at it, Polis might want to ask Rubio to release all of his own metadata publicly anyway. After all, if there’s no big deal in snooping through metadata, Rubio shouldn’t have any shame in revealing everyone he calls (or who calls him), everyone he emails and every website he visits. Right?

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Rep. Jared Polis Calls For 24 Hour Surveillance On Senator Marco Rubio”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

To hell with the jokes, that sort of thing needs to be demanded, with total sincerity, anytime someone shows support for mass surveillance or indiscriminate data collection.

If they really believe it’s ‘no big deal’, lets see them back that up in action as well as word by being subjected to the very thing that they are demanding everyone else have to deal with.

Anyone who claims that such data is ‘harmless’ or ‘incapable of being used to identify someone'(a lie exposed by simply pointing out that if that’s true then it’s useless) should be forced to make their ‘harmless’ data public, so that everyone can dig through it at their leisure.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re:

should be forced to make their ‘harmless’ data public

The thing is, technically this mass surveillance circus doesn’t make your data public. It just makes available to the Government who then may or may not scrutinize it to check if you are the bogeyman.. I mean, terrorist. It depends on if you speak Arabic or happen to believe in Allah or maybe if you read a lot of articles about North Korea saving all photos of Jun-Kin-Song or whatever the fuck is the name. Or whatever flavor the prejudice has at the time, Russians, Chinese, green aliens.

So yeah, they have that defense against such claim.

Or maybe if we vow to make every data about everyone public, including his, so we can collectively fight against terrorism, no? After all we are good, patriotic citizens so why not add us in the anti-terror efforts? I mean, 300 million people scrutinizing the data will surely reveal something damning, no? The possibilities are endless!

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Or maybe if we vow to make every data about everyone public, including his, so we can collectively fight against terrorism, no?”

I think that if we’re going to have blanket surveillance, then all of the data collected should be publicly available. Not so we can collectively fight terrorism, of course (since I don’t believe for a moment that is the main purpose of the surveillance — and even if it is, it’s using poorly aimed scattershot where a rifle might be more appropriate).

I think it should all be publicly available so that we can watch the watchers and so that the scope of the data collection is made very clear to us all.

A panopticon (what we have) is a dystopian concept. If it is inevitable, then we should at least make it the slightly less dystopian concept of an omnopticon.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

How about everyone who was for an idiotic hike to $15/hr be forced to take a few economic courses and learn the definition of “inflation”?

Mark my words, a few years after any place goes to a ridiculous level like that, the middle class will just be completely destroyed by inflation caused by lower class having an influx of disposable income.

ottermaton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Maybe you’re the one who needs to take an economics course.

Wait. Not maybe. Definitely.

Money moving around is pretty much the definition of an economy. Poor people just don’t have money to move around. And when rich people gobble it all up it doesn’t move around either; it just sits there. The ” lower class having an influx of disposable income” will serve to improve the economy. Mark my words.

Machin Shin (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What do you think happens when you move that up like your suggesting? When the high school drop out flipping burgers is suddenly making $15 an hour do you still expect to see the dollar menu? If so your delusional.

The cost of labor goes up the businesses raise prices to make up for increased cost to the business, and end result is that the poor are still poor. Sure the number in their bank might be bigger but so what when everything cost more?

Also, Just so you know, I’m not some rich guy sitting happy and just spouting this out. If they raised minimum wage to $15 an hour I would be getting a large bump in pay. Of course I would also find myself making the same pay as a drop out…. even though I have worked hard to get where I am.

ottermaton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

When the high school drop out flipping burgers is suddenly making $15 an hour do you still expect to see the dollar menu? If so your[sic] delusional.

Since I never said that, I don’t know what your point is supposed to be. That’s a really poor attempt at a straw man

… and end result is that the poor are still poor.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Washington Post article, “Economists agree: Raising the minimum wage reduces poverty” or the many, many studies that reach similar conclusions.

Just so you know, I’m not some rich guy sitting happy and just spouting this out.

It sure sounds like you’ve swallowed their lies hook, line, and sinker, though.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

$15/hr wouldn’t really do all that much, other than push inflation to accellerate, which would result in higher interest rates for a short time.

In other words, if you live in a state where the min wage is $7.50, burger wages double, and so does the cost of fast food. The cost of bulk foods doesn’t change all that much, as those people are already above min wage, so suddenly, healthy food is more affordable compared to unhealthy food.

Raising the minimum wage has a trickle-up effect, where eventually the entire economy compensates. But in the meantime, there’s often a usage shift as those at the lower end of the economy suddenly have more money to spend and the services at the lower end of the economy become more expensive.

Note: a burger would cost pretty much the same for someone making min wage before/after. It’s the people currently making $15/hr that lose out over the short term.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

In my state, the minimum wage has been raised a number of times over the years and is now well above the national minimum wage. We’ve never seen a minimum wage increase affect the rate of inflation to a significant degree (meaning that any effect it had on inflation was less than the noise in the signal).

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

^This. Market forces are at work! Though the market is not free, competition does keeps prices low, so any increases that do occur will be marginal.

This is why we need to stop any one player from preventing others from competing. Where monopolies or other anti-competitive activity occurs, that’s when the prices will skyrocket.

This is why I champion middle-out economics and pour scorn on trickle-down. It ain’t trickling down to me.

ottermaton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:


the middle class will just be completely destroyed by inflation caused by lower class having an influx of disposable income.

A higher minimum wage will lead to a significant boost in incomes for the worst off in the bottom 30th percent of income, while having no impact on the median household.


Boy, that kind of blows that line of BS all to hell, doesn’t it?

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

People in median income households with more disposable income tend to spend more. In an economy run on consumerism, you want this to happen. Why do you think we’ve had such a run on cheap credit? The powers that be know this, they just don’t to spend their own money on it.

If people actually lived within their means, we’d all be screwed. Our economy actually runs on debt.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: He would be more effective if he didn't pull these stunts

What better way to showcase how stupid some ideas are than by applying them, or the logic behind them, elsewhere?

If someone publicly shows support for others being spied on, it seems only fair to demand that they receive the same treatment, to see if they really believe what they are saying, or if they’re just a hypocrite that believes themselves above what they would subject others to.

ahow628 (profile) says:

Re: He would be more effective if he didn't pull these stunts

I don’t think he is doing funny business here. If he was calling Marco Rubio “Marco Boobio” instead, then I would say you have a point.

This is satire which typically is NOT funny. Mass surveillance is a serious issue and Marco Rubio is actually the one making light of it. His meh-its-no-big-deal attitude is a problem and by satirically pointing out that Marco should be subject to it, he is bring the seriousness of the situation to the forefront.

NoahVail (profile) says:

Sen Rubio's wife sideswipes a Porche

“After Jeanette Rubio dropped the Senator off at a political summit, she drove too closely to a four-door Porsche Panamera which, coincidentally, belonged to a supporter of the potential 2016 presidential candidate.

She ended up sideswiping the luxury car, which has a base price of $78,000.”

If only we had total surveillance, surely this tragedy would have been prevented.

MarcAnthony (profile) says:

I applaud Polis’ wit and hope it causes some critical thinking to happen in our government. As it is, few politicos seem to put much forthought into their words and actions. Those who espouse acts of agression against their own people—such as the wholesale destruction of the Constitutional right to be free from warrantless surveillance— shouldn’t hold office.

Anonymous Coward says:

re: uptick in minimum wage

Ya know, as an ex-GI, I can state for a fact that every time a government employee (read that as, a soldier) received a publicly known pay raise, landlords the world over raised their rents to those off-base GIs exactly the same percentage, within the following month, if not even sooner. This happened time and again, both state-side and in other countries where we’ve stationed armed forces.

And somehow, local rates for other necessities seemed to follow that curve, most often within 2 months, but it varied, I admit. Sadly, those on the low end of the income-earning totem pole are seen as least able to resist such shenanigans, and thus they are effectively kept in the lower levels of disposable income.

To paraphrase G. Santyana, those who think that over-riding the most basic tenet of capitalism (supply vs. demand) via legislation are doomed to watch it backfire, on both them personally and their entire society.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...