Partisan Bullshit Tanks House Section 702 Reform Efforts

from the fuck-the-constituents dept

It took the FBI carelessly, stupidly, and unlawfully targeting members of Trump’s inner circle to make Section 702 program reform a thing that might actually happen.

It’s kind of astounding, considering the Snowden leaks provided a much better argument for reform, as well as the FBI’s long-documented history of abusing its access to Section 702 collections to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens.

But it wasn’t until a former Trump advisor and Trump acolyte in the House got caught up in the FBI’s dragnet that things started to look a little grim for supporters of clean reauthorization. Years of abuse was considered fine right up until it affected people who mattered… at least to themselves and the former president they idolize.

There’s been plenty of opposition to unchecked surveillance over the years, but it has almost always been led by Senator Ron Wyden. Wyden’s efforts have been shot down by his own colleagues, who have been unwilling to challenge the Intelligence Community’s claims nothing about any surveillance authority should ever be changed because terrorism.

More than two decades after the 9/11 attacks, this attitude remains in full force. But it has been made worse by hyper-partisanship — something actively encouraged by Donald Trump during his term in office and made worse by Republicans who both want to ingratiate themselves with a former president as well as show their voting base they’re doing something to address Deep State conspiracies they’ve been stoking since Trump first took office.

The thing is this could have led to meaningful reforms, even if the motivations were highly suspect. As for the FBI, it offered only two arguments in defense of its warrantless access to US persons’ communications: (1) TERRORISM!, and (2) [hilariously] pretty much all of our searches of Section 702 collections are unlawful if you bring the Fourth Amendment into it.

The vote on extending Section 702 has been pushed back several times. Reform efforts (again led by Wyden) have been mounted. The rep heading the House Intelligence Community also pushed his own set of “reforms,” but they did nothing more than provide protections to congressional members who might find themselves subjected to the FBI’s continuous surveillance abuses.

The vote in House on proposed reforms and Section 702 reauthorization has given the FBI a free pass until the next renewal. As Elizabeth Nolan Brown notes for Reason, Democrats unwilling to give Republicans what they wanted (even if it meant better protections for their constituents) overwhelmingly voted in favor of an unaltered continuation of everything that’s been abused for years.

A measure requiring federal agents to get a warrant before searching American communications collected as part of foreign intelligence failed to pass the House of Representatives today. The measure received 212 votes for and 212 votes against.

“This is a sad day for America,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.). “The Speaker doesn’t always vote in the House, but he was the tie breaker today. He voted against warrants.”

But it was largely Democrats who sank the warrant requirement. House Democrats voted against the measure 84–126, while Republicans voted for the measure 128–86.

There’s the partisan split. That’s how you end up with a tie, which means the unaltered Section 702 moves on to the Senate for a vote. Had just a few Democrats been willing to place the concerns of Americans ahead of their own antipathy towards those on the other side of aisle, a warrant requirement might have been put in place on the House side of things.

But that didn’t happen. And part of the reason that didn’t happen is because the top-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee decided to swing votes by lying to his fellow representatives. Dell Cameron brings the news and the screenshots:

Cameron’s post for Bluesky says:

The head Dem on House Intel was caught by Politico reporter blasting disinformation out to colleagues ahead of a vote on the 702 wiretap program

Following that were screenshots of tweets (or whatever the fuck) made by Politico reporter Jordain Carney about the last-minute lobbying performed by Congressman Jim Himes, a Democrat representing Connecticut.

If you can’t see/read the screenshots, here’s what they say:

Peak into some of the behind-the-scenes lobbying on 702 ahead of today’s vote:

Himes sent a text to colleagues, explaining that he opposes warrant requirement, calling it an “extreme amendment that goes far beyond” what PCLOB [Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board] recommends, per message I saw,

But…

Sharon Bradford Franklin (chair of the PCLOB, speaking in individual capacity) told me this morning: “I strongly disagree with the characterization” of the amendment “as going far beyond what the PCLOB recommends”

Called it “consistent” and in many ways “similar” to majority rec

Added that PCLOB report notes it would support Congress going further and said the amendment includes similar exceptions to what PCLOB recommended

In other words, Rep. Himes didn’t like what he was hearing from the PCLOB (if, indeed, he bothered to check its views at all) and didn’t want the Republicans to get a win, so he actively misrepresented the PCLOB’s views to swing votes in favor of clean reauthorization. We’ll never know how many Democrats he swung to his side by doing this but the voting tally suggests a lot of Democrats either bought into Himes’ bullshit or simply couldn’t bear giving House Republicans a win… even if that win would have respected Americans’ rights and (as a bonus) shut down the pro-surveillance efforts of the Republican leader of the House Intelligence Committee.

This now moves on to the Senate, which has its own suggestions for reform. Fortunately, Ron Wyden is a senator, which means there’s still a chance the FBI will be subject to warrant requirements if it wants to search NSA data for US persons’ communications. Here’s the latest from Wyden, who has spent his entire career pushing back against surveillance power expansions:

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., vowed to oppose legislation passed by the House of Representatives that would reauthorize Section 702 of FISA and expand warrantless surveillance, in a statement today. 

“The House bill represents one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions of government surveillance authority in history,” Wyden said. “It allows the government to force any American who installs, maintains, or repairs anything that transmits or stores communications to spy on the government’s behalf. That means anyone with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a wifi router, or a phone. It would be secret: the Americans receiving the government directives would be bound to silence, and there would be no court oversight. I will do everything in my power to stop this bill.”

Section 702 remains, at least partially, on the ropes. The FBI’s abuses might finally see themselves curtailed by codification, something that would be far more permanent than its own voluntary oversight efforts or the FISA court’s periodic reprimands. No matter how disingenuous the effort being made by many Republicans is, the end result would be better protections for all Americans — something that can’t be easily undone no matter who’s sitting the White House in 2025.

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 “Partisan Bullshit Tanks House Section 702 Reform Efforts”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
29 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

This will not affect the rich as they can afford the means to get around it

That goes back to the CDA. If it had been upheld, the rich who couidvaffurd the cost of international phone calls wouid have still had uncensored Internet

A sysop outside the United States wouid have not subject to the CDA.

Just like the rich now can own homes abroad and set up a computer there with a VPN and totally evade monitorijg

This is why sopa wouid been unenforceable on the rich as they could have done that

What is think could be the Protection of Internet Communication and Commerce Act, which some modern day prophets predicted after sopa failed, will also be unenforceable on the rich

I do believe that PICCA is what is coming

PICCA will not affect the rich who can afford the means to get around it

Even if vpns are blocked there is still the trick I mentioned once I used at Taco Bell to bypass their vpn blockage.

Just ssl into my server on port 443 and then connect to my VPN using the internal address of 192.168.0.2 and the firewall let it through because of a flaw in the way firewalls work.

It looked to the firewall like I was accessing an internal address on their network instead of mine

Firewalls do not 192.168.0.x, 192.168.1.x, or 10.x.x.x because those are reserved as internal addresses and it is “cooked” into the firmware to ignore those addresses to not filter them

This did not break any laws in Queensland (where my server was). California (where I was), or ant federal laws in either Australia or the United States.

When had my own vpn service if offered that as a selling point so people could build the office firewall in a way that could not be detected or blocked

People using my VPN and this trick to bypass the office firewall did not break any laws the countries where the servers for my online station were

I had servers in

Munich, Germany
Annecy, France
Southport, Australia
Phoenix, Arizona
Santa Rosa, California
Sacramento, California
Helena, Montana
Cuernavaca, mexico

My ssl trick did not break any laws in any of those places even though some people in computer security Usenet groups thought otherwise

I was only subject to the laws where my servers were and no other and I broke no laws there.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It worked to bypass the Bell’s blocking of VPN, I can say that.

If I used the external address for my VPN it was blocked, but it I used the internal address after connecting to my site via SSL and then used the internal address on my network, the firewall let it through.

Even though some might say otherwise, I broke no laws when I used that trick.

There is no law in Australia, or the United States that makes it a crime to bypass a firewall like that or any filtering.

I broke no laws in Queensland, California, or any federal laws in either Australia or the United States

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

part of my point is that laws like CDA could never be enforce3d outside the United States

Had the law been upheld, those who could afford the cost of international long distance phone calls would have still had an uncensored Internet.

Sysops outside the United States would have been not subject to prosecution in the United States under the CDA

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The l requirement the financial gain makes it that way

That is why, 20 years ago, when I plugged a tape recorder into my computer and recorded drm protected tracks into cassettes for my car was not a crime

The felony statutes did not apply to my recodring drm protected tracks onto cassettes for use in the car

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Nemo says:

Re: Re: Mr Masnick,

Having an editorial policy that is decidedly biased against “the Republicans”, considering that while an individual Democrat might be called out, on occasion, “the Democrats” never receive such a focus or treatment, it’s hardly a surprise that you get overreactions like that. It’s as predicable as plans to moderate things at scale never working.

It is your site, sir, but considering I nearly made the same mistake because of that blatantly obvious bias, I cannot but remind you of these observations. It is literally a bed of your own making.

You and your loyal followers can dismiss what I’ve said, or deride me for not toeing your partisan line, you can even use your freedom of speech to permaban me (that’s not meant sarcastically or ironically, either), but if you ignore this nudge, you won’t pause to truly consider the cause-and-effect involved.

But considering you blamed the customer for being incompetent, I won’t get my hopes up. Congratulations for firmly backing the side that is just as evil, I’m sure protecting it from the other evil makes you sleep well at night. (Now that is actually loaded with sarcasm and irony, just to help you tell the difference.)

Meanwhile, Biden’s still trying to violate the Constitution’s ban on unilateral spending by a president. Again. But hey, no biggie, right?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Consider too that it was a Republican, Josh Hawley that wrote into the commercial felony streaming act where the end user is not committing a crime and also his attempt to limit maximum copyright term to 56 years.

That is why he has a bulls eye on his back and Hollywood will be gunning for him when he runs for re election this year

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: How many time you gonna punch yourself in the dick on your first post bro?

“Meanwhile, Biden’s still trying to violate the Constitution’s ban on unilateral spending by a president. Again. But hey, no biggie, right?”

https://www.techdirt.com/2009/12/14/submitting-post-ideas-or-news-to-techdirt/#:~:text=from%20the%20just%2Da%2Dreminder%20dept&text=Also%2C%20when%20submitting%20a%20story,write%20a%20thorough%20analysis%20yourself.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Fuck off.

We have always criticized stupid acts by politicians in both parties, and none of the writers here are particularly partisan at all.

It’s just that, lately, the GOP has been fucking off the rails crazy in terms of their unwillingness to obey the Constitution, so, yes, recently they have gotten more coverage, because they’re doing a lot worse shit.

But, we still highlight whenever Democrats do stupid shit (like in this very post), so get off your high horse.

We’re not a partisan site and never have been.

The only one partisan in this discussion is you. Grow the fuck up or fuck off.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:

Having an editorial policy that is decidedly biased against “the Republicans”, considering that while an individual Democrat might be called out, on occasion, “the Democrats” never receive such a focus or treatment

The editorial policy is biased against bad politicians doing stupid shit, you might draw your own conclusions from that – but you didn’t since

it’s hardly a surprise that you get overreactions like that. It’s as predicable as plans to moderate things at scale never working.

That stupid knuckle dragging trolls with poor reading skills show up on a regular basis? Yes, it’s predictable and no, it isn’t an overreaction what they write.

It is your site, sir, but considering I nearly made the same mistake because of that blatantly obvious bias, I cannot but remind you of these observations. It is literally a bed of your own making.

So you are a knuckle dragging troll adjacent person, is that it? That you start writing stupid inane shit because you lack reading skills and can’t control your emotions when something upsets your foibles?

You and your loyal followers can dismiss what I’ve said, or deride me for not toeing your partisan line, you can even use your freedom of speech to permaban me (that’s not meant sarcastically or ironically, either), but if you ignore this nudge, you won’t pause to truly consider the cause-and-effect involved.

You come here basically saying that the site is wrong, that the regulars are wrong and you know how to fix it and we will all suffer consequences if we don’t – talk about being totally full of himself.

But considering you blamed the customer for being incompetent, I won’t get my hopes up. Congratulations for firmly backing the side that is just as evil, I’m sure protecting it from the other evil makes you sleep well at night. (Now that is actually loaded with sarcasm and irony, just to help you tell the difference.)

Ah, the classic “both side are as bad” from someone pretending to belong to neither side while being clearly upset that TD doesn’t practice the view from nowhere which only benefits the liars, charlatans, grifters and demagogues that are so prevalent on one particular part of the political spectrum.

Meanwhile, Biden’s still trying to violate the Constitution’s ban on unilateral spending by a president. Again. But hey, no biggie, right?

Are you confirming to yourself what you think others believe in with a rhetorical question, or do you think a pattern of unilateral actions set by Trump is bad if other presidents do the same thing?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Are we supposed to read it?

“But it wasn’t until a former Trump advisor and Trump acolyte in the House got caught up in the FBI’s dragnet that things started to look a little grim for supporters of clean reauthorization. Years of abuse was considered fine right up until it affected people who mattered… at least to themselves and the former president they idolize.”

“More than two decades after the 9/11 attacks, this attitude remains in full force. But it has been made worse by hyper-partisanship — something actively encouraged by Donald Trump during his term in office and made worse by Republicans who both want to ingratiate themselves with a former president as well as show their voting base they’re doing something to address Deep State conspiracies they’ve been stoking since Trump first took office.”

Yes, you are calling out a dem after blaming rep for the situation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yes, you are calling out a dem after blaming rep for the situation.

No, the situation already existed as mentioned – it was just exacerbated largely by republican hyper-partisanship and when a chance came to make the situation better democrats fucked it over because they didn’t want to give the republicans a “win”, something they learned from the republicans.

Just to condense the whole article into something so simple that even the lesser gifted can understand it:

Question: Who was to blame that the reform of Section 702 never happened?

Answer: Democrats

buttwipinglord (profile) says:

I am glad Ron Wyden is a senator in my state. I just wish more elected officials had a spine and actually worked to serve their citizens like him.
All of the screaming about Tik Tok and this is one of the giant elephants in the room, it’s a shame a bunch of idiots couldn’t be bothered to just take the damn win! Even if their motives were assuredly for the wrong reasons. People joke at work all the time about the government and Facebook listening to what their mics pic up. (FB has a strange habit of showing multiple people I know things that they could’ve only heard us talking about in proximity to the phone because they are in fields of interest said people never search for) Which given the lack of privacy reform we will never get I joke it is probably true considering all the commercial entities that spy and vacuum up data.
It doesn’t help when Democrats do dumb shit like this to make them look bad “see! Both sides!”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Just like everything else they want to censor, the TikTok ban will not affect the rich they will able to get around it.

The same thing with age verification for things like porn and Social Media, the rich can easily bypass that.

If you have money, you can do anything you want.

Money talks, bs walks

Anonymous Coward says:

Elon Seems To Think The Cruelest Thing He Can Do To People… Is To Pretend They Want To Associate With Him

It’s actually kind of quaint the way that article equated buying vs blocking blue checks.

The blue-blockers knew even then – life should be uncomfortable for Nazis and their enablers, and it’s on all of us to make it so.

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

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...