The Spy Coalition In Congress Rushes Through Plan To Keep The NSA Spying On Americans

from the because-of-course dept

This is, unfortunately, no surprise at all. It happens every time that a key surveillance provision is set to sunset. Rather than have any real public debate about it, the “surveillance hawks” in Congress refuse to do anything until there are just weeks left until the provision would expire… and then try to ram through a renewal. And, indeed, that’s exactly what’s happening. While people who are concerned about these surveillance powers have been urging debate on possible reform for basically two years, Congress has mostly ignored all such requests. Instead, they pushed for a very weak “reform” bill… and then did nothing about it for months. And now, they apparently announced just last week a plan to vote on a toothless bill today. No debate, no notice, no discussion. As EFF notes, this bill is bad:

As we wrote, the bill, originally introduced by Chairman Devin Nunes before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, ?allows warrantless search of American communications, expands how collected data can be used, and treats constitutional protections as voluntary.?

The bill would  create an easy path for the NSA to restart an invasive type of surveillance (called “about” searches) that the agency voluntarily ended earlier this year because of criticisms from the FISA court. It would also give FBI agents the power to decide whether or not to seek a warrant to read American communications collected under Section 702.

Of course, it’s particularly ridiculous that it’s Nunes pushing for this broad renewal of Section 702. While he has a very long history of actively misleading the public about what the NSA can actually do, he was also the one who flipped out when he found out that Section 702 was used (legally under the law) to conduct surveillance that swept in the communications of General Mike Flynn’s calls with Russians. And yet, here he is, making sure that that power continues, without restrictions, suggesting that maybe (just maybe) his public wailing about the surveillance on Flynn was political theater, rather than legitimate concern.

EFF has set up a page to let you contact your Representative to let them know to vote against the bill. Unfortunately, when surveillance hawks started screaming in Congress about how failing to pass this bill will “harm national security” and “put us at risk of terrorist attacks” or “take away a key NSA tool” many Congress members who aren’t knowledgeable about the details will reflexively vote for the bill. Check out the EFF’s page and make sure that your elected representative knows that this is a bad bill that wrecks the 4th Amendment rights of Americans and allows for massive domestic surveillance.

In case you want a refresher, a few months back we wrote about an an important report by Marcy Wheeler detailing twelve years of NSA surveillance abuse, much of it done under this 702 program that is set to expire at the end of the year, and which this new bill seeks to renew without any real change. Please read up and let your elected representatives know not to support this bill.

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 “The Spy Coalition In Congress Rushes Through Plan To Keep The NSA Spying On Americans”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
17 Comments
dcfusor (profile) says:

Lawless Tyranny

Hey, the TLA’s already decided on their own that they’d extend their program a few months on a technicality. There is no enforcement though congress doesn’t agree to that.
It’s more and more obvious that one aspect of this data collection is to have the dirt on the people who sign the checks for these agencies – and not only are they the dirtiest among us, but also the only ones who really care what people think – as they are still somewhat bound by the results at the voting booth.
The idea to blackmail the boss would have, and did, occur to even the most brain-dead beaurocrat. I don’t know why it isn’t obvious to everyone, even though it’s slightly harder to notice “the dog who didn’t bark”. Name a case where these agencies didn’t get 100% of what they wanted….now name any other outfit that always gets their way in the budget. Crickets, right?

Anonymous Coward says:

"General Mike Flynn's calls with Russians" were legal! Was lying to FBI that got him.

I just don’t want you to innuendo Trump-Russia yet again: in fact, AFTER the election Flynn got permission from Obama administration and there was NOTHING illegal or wrong with Flynn’s communications to Russia.

As for topic: rare agreement as we’re both NOT surprised here. However, one of us supports total “commercial” surveillance to which the NSA has “direct access” according to Snowden, and one of us is against ALL surveillance.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: "General Mike Flynn's calls with Russians" were legal! Was lying to FBI that got him.

and there was NOTHING illegal or wrong with Flynn’s communications to Russia.

Other than lying to the FBI about it?

He also lied about his ties to Russia in February 2016 when he was applying for a renewal of his security clearance. He claimed no income from foreign companies and had only “insubstantial contact” with foreign nationals – just a couple months after receiving a 3-day, all-expenses-paid trip and $45,000 from Russia Today. Where he sat at the same table as Putin. (The Defense Department Inspector General is also investigating Flynn.)

There’s also his $530,000 deal with the Turkish government, which again he failed to disclose during the campaign.

He’s being investigated for possible efforts to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails from Russian hackers.

While his intercepted call to Sergey Kislyak (the one he lied about to the FBI this time) wasn’t until December 2016, months earlier during the election Russian officials were bragging that they had a strong relationship with Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team.

While contradicting the US government and telling the Russians that the incoming Trump administration would revisit US sanctions on Russia once in office may not have been illegal (actually, illegal under the Logan act but rarely prosecuted) it certainly was wrong.

So he agreed to plead guilty to a single count in his deal with the FBI. It’s only one count because he made a deal to cooperate as they go after bigger fish.

Rule of Law says:

Re: Re: "General Mike Flynn's calls with Russians" were legal! Was lying to FBI that got him.

So what if he lied to the FBI. Under the “Rule of Law”, all are equal under the law. So, if the FBI can lie to Congress, to the citizens of the USA and to any person under investigation, then they have no right to complain about or to prevent anyone from lying to them.

If any member of any part of government (from El Presidente down, including any member of Congress, of the Judiciary, etc, etc, etc as Yul Brunner would say) is able to lie to the citizens of the USA then anyone can lie to them or anyone else.

They have set the law and no-one is above the law in a land that lives by the “Rule of Law”. If anyone is allowed to do something then everyone is allowed to do those same actions with impunity.

“Rule of Law” rules.

End of story.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

As opposed to…?

Go on, if you’re going to say that Mike is pushing for a tactic that doesn’t work(and like any claim if you want people to believe that one, you’re going to need to back it up by something more than an assertion, keeping in mind that SOPA for one showed that it can and has worked), by all means, dazzle us with your brilliant alternative.

That One Guy (profile) says:

'You're only supposed to do that to the little people, not us!'

And yet, here he is, making sure that that power continues, without restrictions, suggesting that maybe (just maybe) his public wailing about the surveillance on Flynn was political theater, rather than legitimate concern.

Nah, I don’t think it was political theater so much as blatant hypocrisy. Spying on the general public is fine. Spying on a general on the other hand, well that just crosses the line.

Those in charge aren’t supposed to be treated like the peons, they deserve special treatment thanks to their position.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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...
Loading...