House forces vote on amendment that would limit NSA bulk surveillance(guardian.co.uk)
guardian.co.uk
House forces vote on amendment that would limit NSA bulk surveillance
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/23/house-amendment-nsa-bulk-surveillance
13 comments
I agree. It seems very few people are actually calling Congress [1]. If we could achieve this with only so little, imagine if everyone who feels "helpless" but doesn't call, would also call. It would help a lot more.
[1] http://sina.is/call-now-for-privacy/
[1] http://sina.is/call-now-for-privacy/
The White House statement on the amendment is really something to behold.
"... We look forward to continuing to discuss these critical issues with the American people and the Congress.
However, we oppose the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community’s counterterrorism tools. This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process. ..."
Not the product of an informed process - and whose fault is that?
More... http://pastebin.com/RF5U59N0
"... We look forward to continuing to discuss these critical issues with the American people and the Congress.
However, we oppose the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community’s counterterrorism tools. This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process. ..."
Not the product of an informed process - and whose fault is that?
More... http://pastebin.com/RF5U59N0
I'm crossing my fingers on this one. I have hoped from the get-go that Obama was trying to do some political jiu-jitsu to get the House to fight against him on the NSA thing by pretending to support it. People attack him for talking all loftily about most topics and then not getting anything done, so I found it strange that he basically didn't even pretend that the NSA scandal was bad. Keep in mind he didn't start the program; maybe he never really supported it. Everything he's tried to do has resulted in congress opposing him, so trying to change his tactics seems like the logical thing to do.
While this is a nice gesture and I certainly support it, it's hard to believe it would have significant impact. It's clear the NSA is willing to lie to both the public and congress and bend whatever rules they have to. So this will probably just force them through a new loop hole to get where they are today.
When you have your own private supreme court(FISA Courts) to rubber stump rules for you, it's pretty easy to find and/or create loop holes.
On the plus side, if it gets stopped at least we will know who to throw out of office.
When you have your own private supreme court(FISA Courts) to rubber stump rules for you, it's pretty easy to find and/or create loop holes.
On the plus side, if it gets stopped at least we will know who to throw out of office.
The NSA continues to be viewed as a shadowy government agency, limited in its capabilities by federal law. But what do we really know about that? Besides trivial inconvenience, is there any real disadvantage to taking the most paranoid and defensive stance against it?
I continue bringing this up whenever a submission like this appears, because I am very much afraid that the technical community will accept a congressional victory as "okay, let's continue business as usual", when we need to be reinventing everything that has made mass-wiretapping possible in the first place.
I continue bringing this up whenever a submission like this appears, because I am very much afraid that the technical community will accept a congressional victory as "okay, let's continue business as usual", when we need to be reinventing everything that has made mass-wiretapping possible in the first place.
when we need to be reinventing everything that has made mass-wiretapping possible in the first place.
Are you suggesting we somehow roll back the last sixty-odd years of telecommunications and information technology? What do you suggest we replace it with?
Are you suggesting we somehow roll back the last sixty-odd years of telecommunications and information technology? What do you suggest we replace it with?
It probably isn't necessary to replace the hardware infrastructure if privacy and security again become fashionable in software development. A great deal of important peer-to-peer, encryption and general data-obfuscation research has been done already. The trouble is, as Schneier so eloquently put it, that spying is the business model of the Internet.
But we can take another approach.
If this REALLY matters, we should be directing our attention not to some nebulous and almost certainly unenforceable government action, but rather to the eye of the storm: the very things we are building.
This is good mind-fodder if you have a moment to spare: http://zeroknowledgeprivacy.org/
But we can take another approach.
If this REALLY matters, we should be directing our attention not to some nebulous and almost certainly unenforceable government action, but rather to the eye of the storm: the very things we are building.
This is good mind-fodder if you have a moment to spare: http://zeroknowledgeprivacy.org/
This is a HUGE turning point. PLEASE call your member of Congress using this easy calling tool: http://defundthensa.com/.
Just used this site to call my representative. It was super easy, and the person who took my message was very polite.
Let's put some momentum on this thing!
Let's put some momentum on this thing!
"In case you ever thought writing, calling, or emailing your representatives was a waste of time, take it from Steve Hildebrand, Barack Obama's openly gay deputy national campaign director: "I don't think our voices are as powerful as they should be. I think too many people in the gay community do not push their elected officials as hard as they should. If you had 20 gay people together in a room and asked how many of them actually have reached out and either called, e-mailed or sent a letter to their member of Congress over the last two months, I would say the vast, vast majority of them will have done nothing. My suggestion is that people need to become strong activists, that we need to multiply by hundreds the number of activists we have in the gay community. We need more voices, we need louder voices, and we need to tell politicians at every level we're not willing to take their excuses anymore."
And in case you needed reason not to write, call, or email your representative: You will almost never be able to get her on the line. An office staffer will answer the phone (or sometimes just a voicemail box), sort the letters, and go through emails, responding with a form reply, if anything.
What those staffers will hand your legislator, likely, is a tally of how many notes and calls they received from X number of constituents on Y different issues. That summation, however, is what's powerful. In a legislator's very busy day, these briefs are easy to digest and send the most black-and-white picture of what his voters believe.
So yes, your letters and phone calls matter. In aggregate. JUST LIKE VOTES!"
And in case you needed reason not to write, call, or email your representative: You will almost never be able to get her on the line. An office staffer will answer the phone (or sometimes just a voicemail box), sort the letters, and go through emails, responding with a form reply, if anything.
What those staffers will hand your legislator, likely, is a tally of how many notes and calls they received from X number of constituents on Y different issues. That summation, however, is what's powerful. In a legislator's very busy day, these briefs are easy to digest and send the most black-and-white picture of what his voters believe.
So yes, your letters and phone calls matter. In aggregate. JUST LIKE VOTES!"
This seems like a great (and concrete) step forward and folks should call their congressmen. However, the following gave me pause for thought.
"... the NSA itself has indicated its willingness to consider abandoning the phone-records collection provided the telecommunications companies it partners with retains the data."
"... the NSA itself has indicated its willingness to consider abandoning the phone-records collection provided the telecommunications companies it partners with retains the data."
This actually seems like a reasonable compromise
So you trust the phone company more than the NSA - remind me again what over sight the phone companies have from the FCC?
The FCC is unable to actually regulate in some areas (ADSL for example)as states rights trump its ability to be an effective regulator.
The FCC is unable to actually regulate in some areas (ADSL for example)as states rights trump its ability to be an effective regulator.
So you trust the phone company more than the NSA
It's not about whom you trust more. It's about the power of the phone company to string together your phone calls, your cell phone calls, your Internet access, your library books, and your license plate camera sightings. That power is nil with the phone company since they don't have all that other data and they don't have any kind of reason or mandate to make those kinds of connections. The NSA, on the other hand...
It's not about whom you trust more. It's about the power of the phone company to string together your phone calls, your cell phone calls, your Internet access, your library books, and your license plate camera sightings. That power is nil with the phone company since they don't have all that other data and they don't have any kind of reason or mandate to make those kinds of connections. The NSA, on the other hand...
really? try talking to the CWA about some of the stuff that some phone companies get up to in the US.
And I suggest you Google Ernestine the operator
"You're dealing with the phone company, Mr. Veedle. We are not bound by city, state, or federal regulations. We are omnipotent."
And I suggest you Google Ernestine the operator
"You're dealing with the phone company, Mr. Veedle. We are not bound by city, state, or federal regulations. We are omnipotent."
And, further, it creates systemic inertia.
If the NSA has to ask, via court order, for each set of records it wants, I'm a lot less worried about somebody in government using the data for personal entertainment, financial gain, or political advantage.
If the NSA has to ask, via court order, for each set of records it wants, I'm a lot less worried about somebody in government using the data for personal entertainment, financial gain, or political advantage.
> "And, further, it creates systemic inertia"
This is an assumption (and a dangerous one, imho). From what I've read they've already optimised the hell out of getting 'court-orders' so I don't see it as a stretch to imagine that they would do the same with data stored at remote locations.
There have been stories that said companies would help with NSA access since the alternative was to have NSA machines on site. Pushing data back to the companies doesn't mean NSA would walk in and demand to install some of their own hardware.
This is an assumption (and a dangerous one, imho). From what I've read they've already optimised the hell out of getting 'court-orders' so I don't see it as a stretch to imagine that they would do the same with data stored at remote locations.
There have been stories that said companies would help with NSA access since the alternative was to have NSA machines on site. Pushing data back to the companies doesn't mean NSA would walk in and demand to install some of their own hardware.
No, I think it's more than an assumption. The number of people whose records have been seized through court order is much smaller than the the wholesale collection of every phone call record and photos of every piece of paper mail.
We literally have no idea what is done with the bulk-collected data at the NSA. As Snowden and Manning show, internal controls on supposedly sensitive data are weak. But we do know that they can't look through the data they haven't collected.
The court order, even if it's easy to get, leaves a paper trail thrice over. One with the executive branch, one with the courts, and one with whatever company has to cough up data. That won't prevent somebody sufficiently powerful and confident from getting data. But it will act as a significant deterrent to casual snooping by insiders, and also to political misuse of the system.
We literally have no idea what is done with the bulk-collected data at the NSA. As Snowden and Manning show, internal controls on supposedly sensitive data are weak. But we do know that they can't look through the data they haven't collected.
The court order, even if it's easy to get, leaves a paper trail thrice over. One with the executive branch, one with the courts, and one with whatever company has to cough up data. That won't prevent somebody sufficiently powerful and confident from getting data. But it will act as a significant deterrent to casual snooping by insiders, and also to political misuse of the system.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but the NSA will just redefine in their minds what all the terminology means so they can keep doing what they want. If we forbid "collecting records" they'll consider "collecting" to be taking ownership of records and allow themselves to query via PRISM on site at Facebook et al. If that's considered a 'search' violating the 4th amendment, they'll make an AI robot to do the searching. They'll be constantly one step ahead in making new technology to avoid being restricted by terminology. People need to go to prison for what they've already done. Passing a new law to explicitly forbid their past and current behavior only legitimizes what they've done and will lead to further acceptance of their actions.
Be careful with your optimism. If the amendment passes, it will be a sign to many that the days of draconian domestic surveillance are over. The trouble is that this may or may not be the case; we likely won't be told the truth. And yet our defenses will be lowered just the same.
Question, they keep mentioning phone records. What about the mass surveillance of email, texts, multimedia, and the cooperation of all those big corporations? Does this include that as well?
It doesn't, but it's a concrete first step. If we can win this fight, we redefine the debate, and the discussion becomes "which part of the NSA's surveillance will be blocked next?"
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act applies to business records in general, which can include email and web browsing metadata in additional to phone.
It is good to see that some politicians still have the balls to speak truthfully about this issue...
How is this not getting upvoted more?
It's creeping up the front page. Looks like it got hit early on by the HN purists who flagged it a bunch, but now that they're out of ammo it's getting up there.
hahaha
You can't be serious. NSA simply won't lose.
You can't be serious. NSA simply won't lose.
All such agencies will lose if we start creating software more responsibly. I understand that Stallman is a somewhat controversial figure here, but his mantra of "freedom over convenience" might bear repeating.
You are heavily downvoted, but the NSA self-funding would not be entirely without precedent. They certainly have the ability, the only question is if they have balls large enough to actually do it.
Here's a helpful webpage that'll give you your congressman's phone number from your zip code as well as a script to read: http://defundthensa.com/