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.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    dcfusor (profile), 20 Dec 2017 @ 9:32am

    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2017 @ 9:38am

    "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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 20 Dec 2017 @ 10:41am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rule of Law, 20 Dec 2017 @ 2:14pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Rapnel (profile), 20 Dec 2017 @ 10:43am

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

      Date of Death : October 26th, 2001

      What we have here is theater all around. Both opinions, real or not, are of little consequence.

      Cause of Death: United States Congress

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2017 @ 10:04am

    and N.Korea, Iran, China are bad governments as far as surveillance ,privacy, freedom and free speech are concerned? seems the real top of the list isn't even showing! what the hell is the USA being turned into?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    hij (profile), 20 Dec 2017 @ 10:15am

    Flipped out in what sense?

    When you say the Honorable Mr. Nunes "flipped" out you should use quotation marks. #SecurityTheatre

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2017 @ 11:13am

    Of all the things that never worked, "contacting one's representative" is probably the best example, and yet it seems to remain the only solution you recommend. Why is that, Mike?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 20 Dec 2017 @ 11:43am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2017 @ 11:44am

      Re:

      SOPA is a counter example to your argument.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Dec 2017 @ 11:53am

      Re:

      Of all the things that never worked, "contacting one's representative" is probably the best example

      This is wrong. It actually works SURPRISINGLY well. It's the ONE thing that actually can beat out lobbyists. IF enough people contact their reps, reps are surprisingly willing to bend. But there have to be enough people to contact.

      The reason that it sometimes seems like it doesn't work is not enough people contact their reps. When a lot do, and the rep fears re-election... stuff happens fast.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rule of Law, 20 Dec 2017 @ 2:23pm

        Re: Re:

        Interesting, you are saying that it takes many, many citizens to counteract one lobbyist?

        So the effectiveness of "contacting one's representative" is NOT working "SORPRISINGLY well"?

        Please if you make this argument young Jedi then be aware that the "Dark Side" has SURPRISINGLY more power and control when using the Force.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 20 Dec 2017 @ 11:48am

    '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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2017 @ 12:56pm

    "Congress has mostly ignored all such requests."

    Because people mostly ignore Congress... it's a win-win!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DNY (profile), 21 Dec 2017 @ 3:09am

    Signals Intelligence

    Signals intelligence is a war measure -- the vigorous conduct of which against foreign adversaries I strong support. The desire of many in government to apply it to the American citizenry is an unwitting admission that they regard the populace they are, in theory, elected, appointed or hired to serve as an enemy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.