Senate To Vote Tuesday On Surveillance Bill; Four Senators Try To Rally Others To Oppose
from the say-bye-to-the-4th-amendment dept
Following yesterday’s bizarre vote in the House, in which many members who opposed President Donald Trump and warn about his abuses of office voted to give him much greater surveillance capabilities, the issue quickly moved to the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a procedural move to ensure no amendments are added, and the bill the Senate will vote on will be basically the awful bill in the House.
On top of that he put out a misleading statement, playing up the usual fear mongering about Section 702 and even name-checking 9/11.
?Republicans and Democrats agree that we must not deprive the men and women who protect our country of this important tool. Five years ago, a reauthorization of Section 702 passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Al Qaeda, ISIL and associated terror groups remain intent on striking our people, and those serving us overseas. I look forward to renewing the bipartisan consensus on this issue now that the time has come to approve a new extension.?
?With each day that passes since this nation was attacked on September 11th, 2001 it seems that the concern over terrorism has waned. That is in part due to the success of our defense and intelligence community in preventing another attack. And they rely upon section 702 to accomplish that mission. But as we know, Al Qaeda, ISIL and associated terror groups remain intent on striking our people, and those serving us overseas.?
Of course, this ignores that Section 702 didn’t even show up until almost a decade after 9/11 — so really wasn’t responsible for most of the intelligence work that McConnell is giving it credit for. And, on top of that, it ignores the widespread abuse of Section 702 programs that we now know about. It also ignores that in some ways this new bill expands the power to conduct surveillance on Americans without a warrant and to use that surveillance for law enforcement, rather than intelligence purposes.
An intellectually honest debate about this would address these issues. But McConnell does not appear interested in an intellectually honest debate, preferring to scream “9/11!” and demand Senators vote to approve the plan. There is a group of four Senators pushing back against this: Senators Rand Paul, Ron Wyden, Mike Lee and Pat Leahy have sent a powerful letter to their colleagues, detailing the many problems with the bill.
This bill allows an end-run on the Constitution by permitting information collected without a warrant to be used against Americans in domestic criminal investigations. It endorses the possibility that the government will resume ?about? collections on Americans, a practice that the government was actually forced to abandon last year due to significant non-compliance with privacy protections ordered by the FISA Court. And it does nothing to protect innocent Americans from expanding warrantless surveillance.
- Continuing the ?backdoor? loophole: The bill does nothing for the thousands of Americans whose private communications are searched without a warrant every year, including those who are not even the subject of an investigation. Nor would it prevent unlimited searches for Americans? information, even for non-national security purposes. The so-called ?warrant requirement? reform in the bill applies only to criminal suspects, and then only to the government?s access to their information at the final stage of an investigation, a situation that, according to the most recent annual data from the Director of National Intelligence, has occurred once. This means that the bill actually treats those suspected of a crime better than innocent Americans.
- Restarting ?About? collection: The bill, for the first time, would statutorily recognize the possibility of the government restarting ?about? collection, essentially by default, which would necessarily include warrantless collection of communications to and from Americans for whom there is no suspicion at all. The government was forced to abandon this problematic form of collection last year due to extensive compliance problems, and should not be allowed to resume it without specific Congressional approval.
- Unreviewable end use: The bill grants new, unchecked powers to the Attorney General to allow data collected without a warrant to be used in domestic criminal prosecutions of Americans. The Attorney General merely has to determine that a criminal proceeding ?affects, involves, or is related to the national security of the United States? or involves a ?transnational crime.? Alarmingly, the bill explicitly prohibits any challenge to the Attorney General?s decision.
To be clear, FISA?s purpose is to collect foreign intelligence, but without additional meaningful constraints, Congress is allowing the government to use information collected without a warrant against Americans in domestic court proceedings. We have introduced two separate bills which preserve the government?s ability to pursue terrorists abroad and protect the country from foreign threats while also making the necessary reforms to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans here at home.
The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, however, further expands the risks of unconstitutional spying on innocent Americans, and we encourage you to join us in opposition to this bill. We believe that a clean, short-term extension would be markedly preferable to this legislation. Section 702 was last extended for the length of the Continuing Resolution; if Leadership does not allow any amendments to the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act and it does not pass this coming week, then Section 702 authorities can be extended again on the next Continuing Resolution to allow the Senate to fully debate how to appropriately reform this powerful surveillance tool.
It would be nice if other Senators actually paid attention and listened to these four… but the fact that it is just these four (and they tend to be the most reliable four Senators talking about protecting the 4th Amendment) suggests that McConnell knows that he has enough votes to pass the bill and allow the NSA and domestic law enforcement to increase their warrantless surveillance of Americans. This also means that it might be a good time to call your own two Senators and make sure they’re voting against this. Fight for the Future is crowdfunding to buy billboards advertising against some Senators who vote for the bill, but the more these Senators hear from constituents saying that this bill obliterates our 4th Amendment rights, the better.
Filed Under: mike lee, mitch mcconnell, nsa surveillance, patrick leahy, rand paul, ron wyden, section 702, senate
Comments on “Senate To Vote Tuesday On Surveillance Bill; Four Senators Try To Rally Others To Oppose”
Talk about quick service! At 7:32 I asked for another piece:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180104/09234138930/colorado-cities-keep-voting-to-build-their-own-broadband-networks.shtml#c74
And ten minutes later, The Masnick itself drops a load!
Too bad it’s even duller than rest today. — Really, an upcoming vote, four days off, outcome practically certain?
A wild weekend is in store for me, in comparison. I rarely click in, the excitement of the Mutual Appreciation Society meeting, congratulating selves on past writing and recent “funnies” is just too much.
Re: Re:
It’s a crying shame your friend with benefits MyNameHere isn’t around to stroke himself off to this slew of surveillance, isn’t it?
Re: Talk about quick service! At 7:32 I asked for another piece:
You seem bitter.
Ah, the Lois Griffin trick.
Re: We Luv Congress
“An intellectually honest {Congressional} debate about this would address these issues…”
_____
…and if pigs had wings– they could fly!
Honest debates never happen in Congress — only the ignorant or foolish would expect such. Congress is totally dysfunctional and cannot perform even its routine responsibilities, like budgets.
Disheartening to see so many Americans maintaining strong faith in the processes of Congress & government… despite overwhelming evidence that those processes normally fail the citizens and nation.
Re: Re: We Luv Congress
What do you propose to replace the existing system, and how do you think it will be implemented?
More importantly, how do you propose to keep those who seek power over others from seeking and seizing such power?
The problem is not the idea of government, but rather the type of person who seeks power over others.
Re: Re: We Luv Congress
What, and anarchy would be better?
Re: Re: Re: We Luv Congress
quite right, anarchy is the only other possible alternative to the way c0ngress operates now
(your standard anarchy comment is pretty boring– try something new)
Re: Re: Re:2 We Luv Congress
Ahem! http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/once-more-with-feeling-anarchy-doesnt.html
I await your rebuttal.
The ONLY reason the democratic process isn’t working properly right now is because the people aren’t doing enough to hold their representatives to account. They outsource democracy to the Glorious Leaders chosen for them by SuperPACS and advertised on the media. They don’t attend Town Hall meetings or contact their reps to call them out for bad legislation. Imagine a world in which more of us did that instead of blindly going along with whatever is being said in our particular media silo.
A service for everyone
I’m going to revive a suggestion I made once before.
Let’s demand the Congress order NSA and the intelligence community to record every US phone call in its entirety, and then make those calls available to anyone with suitable legal process. (Email and instant messages as well.)
Make it mandatory. No more excuses from the NSA that, well we just didn’t happen to record that call. Didn’t record the call? NSA pays a penalty. No question whether NSA is recording everything, it’s their job.
Why? Several reasons. First of all, everyone would know what the rules are. Your phone is being recorded, if you say anything illegal, it will be known. You have a relationship with an old girlfriend, it will be known. You are a senator making deals under the table, it will be known.
It should be very useful in many ways even if it does somewhat restrict our freedom to speak freely. But anyone with a brain is already restricted, because only an idiot thinks the NSA isn’t already recording everything they say…and won’t hand anything interesting to the FBI under the table.
Most importantly, it will bring parity. No longer will the NSA and the FBI have all the advantages. You work across town in the bar at the time of the murder? No doubt about it, it’s a matter of the record; location of your phone and the background of the call you made. Question of you doing drug, or terrorism, deals by phone? Nope, phone calls prove otherwise. FBI setting you up? If you can make a prima facie case, then you can pull the agent’s phone calls and prove it. Company lied about what services you ordered? No doubt about it now.
NSA is so bound and determined to record everything that they feel like recording? Let’s make them turn it into a service for everyone. No more gleeful snooping, turn it into the drudge job they deserve.
Re: A service for everyone
That is a terrible idea.
Re: Re: A service for everyone
Cool opinion, bro.
Explain it.
Re: Re: Re: A service for everyone
record every US phone call – unconstitutional
make those calls available to anyone – this will certainly not be abused
Make it mandatory – more power to the power hungry
NSA pays a penalty – taxpayers end up with the bill
everyone would know what the rules are – except those who enforce them
say anything illegal – what? Need examples here, like “bomb” in an airport?
very useful in many way – I imagine it would be (eye roll)
restrict our freedom to speak freely – First amendment be damned
it will bring parity – no it wont
No longer will the NSA and the FBI have all the advantages – this is not entirely clear what is intended
Nope, phone calls prove otherwise – certainly fool proof evidence huh
Re: Re: Re:2 A service for everyone
record every US phone call – unconstitutional A. Like that stops them now? B. You know that the courts have held that they can do this for National Security reasons, so all we need to do and say it’s for National Security and the courts will shrug.
make those calls available to anyone – this will certainly not be abused There would need to be protections, yes, but do we have those now? And I did say suitable protections, without elaborating, but what I meant was subpoenas and legal process. No more than they can now abuse your journal/diary in court.
Make it mandatory – more power to the power hungry Actually it would reduce their relative power. By mandatory I mean everyone. Donald Trump’s calls would be recorded too.
NSA pays a penalty – taxpayers end up with the bill; everyone would know what the rules are – except those who enforce them No worse than now. I agree this is a problem, but you can’t say it’s a worse problem with the new rules that I proposed than with the rules that exist now.
But not all penalties upon government have to be in the form of money, read on.
say anything illegal – what? Need examples here, like "bomb" in an airport? I worded this badly, better would be: Don’t say anything you don’t want to hear played back in court. Honestly: would you say such a thing on the phone now? Knowing the NSA is listening? And would pass anything interesting on to the FBI?
very useful in many way – I imagine it would be (eye roll) Right now, it is useful for NSA, FBI, DOJ, etc., and offers us nothing but oppression. At least we would get some benefit if everything was recorded. More below.
restrict our freedom to speak freely – First amendment be damned Worse than now?
it will bring parity – no it wont Parity in the sense of, "Who benefits." Right now, only government and the powerful benefit. The idea is to open the benefits to everyone equally…and also the penalties.
Not just the NSA and FBI either. You’ve heard that warning, we all have, that, "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes." Companies use it all the time for order placement lines. Now suppose you order something pricy and renege…what are the chances that the company will have a recording of your call placing the order? Oh, right, 100%. And, what’s the probability after the company shoved a bunch of services on you that you didn’t ask for? Currently, zero; power all theirs, no parity. New world, 100%, parity; you lie, you die, they lie, they die.
No longer will the NSA and the FBI have all the advantages – this is not entirely clear what is intended Clearer now?
Nope, phone calls prove otherwise – certainly fool proof evidence huh Better than no evidence. More importantly, this is another example of parity. Suppose you’re charged with a crime, currently, and the NSA happens to have recorded a phone call that proves your innocence. What are the chances that evidence would be available to you in court, currently? Zip, right? Because, currently, NSA, FBI and DOJ would neglect to mention that there’s a recording of the call and too bad for you. (We don’t have to guess on this, we have seen examples, right here on this site, of these agencies concealing evidence.)
In the new regime, the call would certainly be relevant, so you would get a subpoena for it. No matter how bad it is for their case, the agencies could not hide it. Oh I suppose the NSA could claim they didn’t record it, but then penalty. And not all penalties have to be monetary, one that comes to mind for this situation is, "Case dismissed."
Re: Re: Re:3 A service for everyone
Technically all of our laws apply to everyone equally. The problem is that those laws aren’t enforced equally. What make you think this will be different than it is now? Everything you say will certainly be available but recordings will be conveniently misplaced or accidentally not recorded just like body cam footage when someone influential is accused.
Re: Re: Re:3 A service for everyone
“Like that stops them now?”
I stopped reading at the above. I imagine the rest of your reply is comprised of similar silliness, I do not care.
Re: Re: Re:4 A service for everyone
You might want to go and read the story above, since you clearly didn’t. What Congress is proposing to pass does not respect your constitutional rights at all, and based on past history the courts will be mute. You declaim that my concept is silly and unconstitutional. But my concept is not different from what the Senators proposed to put into law except that we are shot out of the benefits, if any.
Re: A service for everyone
If only voting on such an idea could actually work in this world.
Imagine, even for just a moment, that no honest man/woman would ever be wrongly convicted by the things they said on the telephone. It would be like a self-checking intra-network of easily verifiable facts and realities and its users could actually record contracts directly with distribution and other business…
humans…. why humans would evolve into creatures that actually thought shit out before responding…
oops… sorry bout that.
A piece of reality just walked in.
—
PakiTips
So you claim to have cured cancer?
Actually!
That sounds very interesting.make them do their job, and the people would get some bang for the buck they pay. But, then, new data centers, more people to review the processes, where would you put it? China?
Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
It is a shame how our political system has been perverted. Elected officials truly believe that their ‘job’ is to get re-elected…by any means necessary. Any work on the issues of the day are incidental and merely a means to that end, and cronyism is part and parcel of getting to that end. Hence political parties.
If we took the money out of politics (has I have and will continue to promote) we will still be left with the problem that elected officials think their ‘job’ is to get re-elected, even if they no longer have to spend significant portions of their time fund raising. They would still spend that time cozy-ing up to ‘beneficial or influential’ people (aka party bigwigs and movie stars) and still neglect their duties to their constituents.
We need a better way to hold office holders accountable…in-between elections. I tend to favor something along the electroshock line, but many people think torture is bad, and is also ineffective. So where does that leave us? Maybe amending the Constitution or election law allowing for some sort of recall that could be initiated by any constituent, but only for provable cause (failing to uphold a pre-election promise without some new information that could cause a reasonable person to consider alternatives, for example). But getting the elected to do something that would harm their grasp on power seems like a no go from the get go.
What other methods could we use. Legal ones I mean. I don’t see nuking Washington as the way to go.
Re: You're doing this wrong!
You must join a team and battle the other team to the death. JFC, dude, get with the program!
Re: Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
You have overlooked the human flaws commonly referred to as megalomania and narcissistic personality disorder. Removing money would not address these issues.
How about voting on the issues rather than a cult of personality
Re: Re: Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
The question is…how to do that!
Re: Re: Re: Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
Select a pool of candidates like a draft. Idk. It may be too late for now.
Re: Re: Re: Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
I dont know how that might work exactly, but it is a bit frustrating to have your representative promise things and then do the opposite.
The quantity of issues voted upon would need to be limited to something reasonable, not sure how to prioritize this.
There would have to be something to limit what has been called tyranny of the majority.
And … each item would be limited to one issue – no more of that cram everything into one bill so that no one likes it and name the bill something like saving puppies and kitties act.
Re: Re: Re:2 Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
To get rid of the tyranny of the majority simply eliminate political parties. The founding fathers discussed this, and George Washington, in his farewell address, recommended it.
I agree with the whole one bill one subject, no riders idea. It’s a better idea than giving the president a line item veto.
To prioritize legislative time, simply sunset all laws every seven years. Give them seven years to pick the ones we need, anything not ratified goes in the circular file. It might take a few cycles, but in the end we will have a body of law that even a police officer could remember and the legislature would not only have to write laws that could be re-upped in seven years but would have little time to write unneeded laws.
Oh, and I like that draft legislators idea, but we would probably need some sort of standards, reading, writing, arithmetic, no criminal past (misdemeanors would not count), etc..
Re: Re: Re:3 Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
It occurs to me that the real problem is politics. Take the politics out of legislation and elections then a lot of problems are solved.
How do we take politics out of government? I say it that way because politics does not end with either elections or legislation. Politics, however, is a problem. What makes things political and in need of politics? I don’t know the answer to that, but that is the issue that is in need of solving. There are sub-issues, money, political parties, riders on legislation, etc., but it is politics that creates more problems than it solves.
Re: Re: Re:4 Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
In order to overcome political bullshit we would first need to stop lying. At this point, it appears that lying is one of several tools being used to undermine the fabric of this nation. These same people claim to be patriots and wag their fingers at those who point out the facts. This is insanity.
Re: Re: Re:3 Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
How?
You can’t prevent people with common interests from forming organizations.
You can remove party affiliations from ballots. But in my experience (I live in a city which has "nonpartisan" mayoral elections), everybody knows which candidate is the Republican and which one is the Democrat, even if it doesn’t say on the ballot.
For this policy to work in any way would require a functional Congress. We’re seeing what happens right now when we don’t have one of those: most legislation simply doesn’t pass, even legislation with broad support from the public. What does pass this Congress? Tax cuts for the wealthy and, evidently, the renewal of section 702.
Under a system where all laws expire after every 7 years, we wouldn’t just be seeing the sunset of things like the ACA, CHIP, and DACA; we’d see the entire social safety net gone. Social security? Gone. Medicare and Medicaid? Gone. Unemployment insurance? Gone. Minimum wage, child labor laws, laws against false advertising, restrictions on banking fraud, limitations on mercury in the water and lead in paint? Gone. Authoritarian favorites like Section 702, meanwhile, would still get renewed.
No. There’s a reason we ban tests for voting: it’s that racists use them to prevent minorities from voting. Applying a similar test for legislators would achieve the same result: unqualified white people like our current Commander-in-Chief would manage to pass, while minority candidates would mysteriously wind up with low scores.
"No criminal past" is another requirement that sounds good on its face, but you’ve been on Techdirt long enough to know what kinds of things constitute crimes: everything from marijuana possession to violations of the CFAA. No sir, these crimes should not disqualify people from running for office.
Re: Re: Re:4 Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
What Thad says.
It’s really ironic and somewhat amusing in a sad way that politicians are often pro surveillance and strong law and order until they personally get stuck in the gears ordinary folks have to deal with daily. Then they very quickly back off and join what little opposition there is to such heavy handed laws.
Maybe people should start purchasing ISP and phone company records for each and every politician then spread them as far and wide as possible. While it probably won’t make for better laws, the stupidity and pettiness of politicians can be legendary, it will at least get some pay back.
Re: Re:
That is why they exempt themselves from the laws they “write” … hahaha, yeah they dont write them, they rubber stamp without even reading them. Apparently some are not even readable, not sure how anyone knows wtf it says.
When will you stop trumping up complete and utter pieces of shit like Wyden? NOTHING this man has ever done has changed the end game of ANYTHING. He and his fellow ilk are playing along, just like the rest of the politicians, trying to make it appear as if someone represents the interests of regular people per se. Of course, he doesn’t mean one goddamn word of it, but that never stopped the tard-ass fuckshits at techdirt from trumping up a fellow liar as if he’s something special. He’s never done anything, in hind-site, but rub infractions into the noses of those concerned. Don’t tell me about how special his lip-flipping is, it’s still lip-flipping, still meaningless, and still – NOTHING.
Re: Re:
trump it up – hahaha
good thing Mr Cheetos was playing golf today
Re: Re:
Asswipe is still wiping asses.
And so far as his allegations, no proof. Not one iota. Just partisan rhetoric. And note, one cannot even tell which part the partisan is partisan to.
Lick harder, your masters are unsatisfied.
Democrats were just trying to be more “Googley” by voting to expand mass surveillance.