New Bill Would Repeal Patriot Act 188
schwit1 points out a new piece of bipartisan legislation that aims to repeal the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, which the NSA has used to justify broad domestic surveillance. House Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) introduced the bill yesterday, calling it the Surveillance State Repeal Act (PDF). Pocan said, "This isn't just tinkering around the edges. This is a meaningful overhaul of the system, getting rid of essentially all parameters of the Patriot Act." The bill also attempts to dramatically strengthen whistleblower protections, so situations like Edward Snowden's and Thomas Drake's don't happen in the future. This legislation is not expected to get the support of Congressional leaders, but supporters hope it will at least inspire some debate about several provisions of the Patriot Act coming up for renewal in June.
Repeal PATRIOT Act? (Score:4, Insightful)
This will never pass. You can't repeal the PATRIOT Act... That would be unpatriotic. The FISA Amendments Act won't be repealed either. This is merely for show and we all know it.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have called it the "GOD GUNS JESUS THE BIBLE AMERICA FUCK YEAH" bill.
And no I'm not going to try to make up an acronym expansion for that.
Re:Repeal PATRIOT Act? (Score:4, Insightful)
Its about fucking time! (Score:2, Insightful)
14 years late if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
Do what you can to support this (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.house.gov/represent... [house.gov]
The more public support it appears this gains, the more likely it is that we can get some push back on our road to total surveillance. Much better than just saying it's got no chance and not doing anything.
Re:Do what you can to support this (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, if there was ever a time the slashdot effect was needed, it's now.
Apathy towards the workings of our government are what allowed the Patriot Act to last this long, I hope that same apathy can be counted on to keep the "whatever to keep us safe!" crowd from fighting its repeal.
Re: (Score:3)
While I completely agree, I'm not sure the Slashdot Effect has existed for nigh a decade now.
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the fact that many of these representatives represent rural communities, where they need to travel miles to even see a local town government official, or police man. This stuff has limited impact on their lives. While the City Folk who see a Homeland security truck parked outside their home feel more threatened.
They rural folk are more likely to see the PA as something that affects other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps this is just a PR stunt to get you to be more lax about encryption. The government is not happy with itself for having created the 'encrypt everything' movement. They would like you to lower your guard.
The plan should be two fold.
1) Support this bill
2) Encrypt everything.
Re:Do what you can to support this (Score:4, Informative)
I strongly urge you to support the Surveillance State Repeal Act that is being proposed by Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). We need smarter protections in place on both sides of this issue and this Act is a step in the right direction. Protecting our country is important, but we can't sacrifice our freedom to achieve our goals. Please take a stand for the freedom our nation was founded on and work with other representatives to achieve a safe and free nation we can all be proud to call home.
Re: (Score:2)
Done, both my congressperson and BOTH of my senators.
In your message, your asking your congressperson to support the bill. You're asking your senators to introduce similar legislation in the senate.
I'm encouraged that this his a sponsor from each side the aisle.
Now write respectful emails (or better, CALL) and ask your rep to support and your senator to introduce similar legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Even if you're cynical about the odds of defeating it being slim, remember that your odds are guaranteed to be zero if you do nothing, and you never quite know what a less than zero value might count for. A few minutes to throw your two cents in shouldn't be too much to spare.
Excellent. Maybe future candidates for president. (Score:2)
Re:Excellent. Maybe future candidates for presiden (Score:5, Insightful)
While people on slashdot might agree with this proposal, politically it is no different than all those other 'stunt' bills that have no chance of passing. The people proposing it get to stand up and say 'look what I did!', while being safe from any negative publicity from effects of their actions if it did pass. This IS pretending to lead.
Let them know (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Let them know (Score:4, Insightful)
Emails are pretty useless, if you actually go through the effort to compose a real letter and send it through the mail with a stamp that costs real-world money, now that gets some attention! Also Congress-Critter's brains are hard-wired for reciprocity so be sure to inform them of your past support and that their support on this matter will make future support of them easier for you.
Re:Let them know (Score:5, Informative)
And when you do (not if you do, because you are going to contact your representatives on this), frame your concerns accordingly. Framing means to give your rep a reason to support the bill that agrees with his or her beliefs, and that they can justify to their lobbyists.
If your rep leans left on social issues or military issues, remind them about Hoover's FBI and the Church Commission during the Vietnam era. If your rep has a "D" behind his name, remind them of Nixon and the original campaign of dirty tricks whereby his advisors attempted to eavesdrop on his opponents. If your rep is gay, remind them of the days when being outed was a career-ender.
If your rep has an "R" behind their name or is hawkish on national security, remind them that every backdoor we leave open (or demand be built in!) for the use of our spies is a backdoor that can be exploited by Chinese and Russian spies. If your rep is in any tech-heavy are regardless of "D" or "R", and/or if they lean right on business issues, remind them of the impact on the business community, such as Cisco's drop in sales that has been partially attributed to the reluctance of foreign customers to purchase from US vendors. America's economy cannot grow unless American companies can sell American products to the world. Americans can't get jobs unless the world is willing to purchase American hardware, software, and host its data on American services.
There are many good reasons to repeal the USAPATRIOT Act. Some are about civil rights and not repeating the mistakes of the past. Some are about preserving our freedoms for the future. Some are about business competitiveness. Some are about making us more secure from foreign spies. Frame your concerns in a manner that your representative won't dismiss out of hand.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why this post is AC, it's 100% spot-on, wish I had modpoints for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the Patriot act is affected through the Homeland Security Act, which in turn uses wings of the FBI and CIA to implement various measures but most importantly it uses the Department of Homeland Security. with a quarter of a million people employed and a sixty billion dollar budget, many southern senators and politicians would likely find the bill, or any bill that touches DHS for that matter, toxic. customs and border protection agents, largely composed of veterans who would otherwise find themselves unemployed, make up the bulk of nearly 60,000 employed by the agency. Expect Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico senators to turn a blind eye to this legislation as no one wants to face an election with the fact they voted to axe these jobs, however pointless and destructive.
expect the administration --any administration for that matter-- to object to strengthening whistleblower protection. The laundry list of whistleblowers in federal government whos actions have directly led to their chronic unemployment and ostracization from society is evidence enough that we as a society care more about the idea of american patriotism than the actual functional implementation and repercussions of it.
The jobs don't particularly need to be lost in order to restore the constitutional rights that have been infringed upon. (not saying I like it - just sayin')
I'd rather have the TSA and have my rights than have the TSA and not have my rights.
Re: (Score:2)
customs and border protection agents, largely composed of veterans who would otherwise find themselves unemployed, make up the bulk of nearly 60,000 employed by the agency.
We had those before DHS and the Patriot Act. They'll be just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent! (Score:2)
All it would take (Score:5, Insightful)
One Event
Think of the children. Hell, think of the shareholders...
Re:All it would take (Score:4, Insightful)
The terrorist attack doesn't even need to happen. They just need to "find" a terrorist cell with explosives, plans, etc. all ready to go. Then sow a little fear that others might be out there and their funding/powers will not only be unchallenged, but increased and challenging their authority will be political poison for another decade
irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not the Patriot Act is repealed, things won't change where it really matters. Just as politically correct speech codes only serve to drive non-PC speech further underground and yield fetish groups that rally around things like racial purity, a total "victory" in Congress to repeal PATRIOT will just drive the secret courts into more secretive practices.
Because the US government is no longer run by elected officials. I don't mean to sound conspiratorial, it's just that representatives come and go while an army of bureaucrats are led by people with decades-long careers. Those people are not elected, nor are they responsive to political winds. As far as Congress using the power of the purse, the feds have a printing press and they aren't afraid to use it.
It's a start but what about China et al. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a lot of Internet facing applications and it's becoming more and more apparent that certain nations, China for one, are constantly scanning or trying to break into systems. We've been leveraging mod_geoip/geoip2 etc. for awhile but that's at my point of presence. When are we going to start filtering IP addresses or subnets from nations where this kind of activity is permitted? It's a matter of national security but I don't see much in the way that the Patriot act or any act is really protecting intellectual property and websites from these kinds of coordinated efforts not just spying on citizens? I would much rather see a substantial amount of NSA resources focused on that problem rather than worrying of about who I send e-mails to.
Why Contacting your Congresscritter won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The Supreme Court ruling that basically allows virtually limitless campaign contributions means that reps and senators no longer have to depend on the public for financing, meaning that they can do whatever they want and if Big Money likes it, they'll get re-election money. I don't see this as anything Big Money cares about.
2) There's a possibility that the majority of Americans may actually be in favor of the Patriot Act. I know that it's common for American Slashdotters to believer that the entire nation agrees with them politically, but I believe that in fact the majority of Americans are not troubled at all by the things that drive American Slashdotters mad.
3) Voters have proven for decades that they don't pay attention to issues at all, they have short memories, and they merely vote on party lines every time. Incumbents have little incentive to listen to the voters when they can literally do anything short of breaking the law and handily get re-elected. And polls have laughingly shown that year after year the US electorate wants to "throw everybody out, except my representative/senator" and they fail to grasp that when the entire country insists that their rep/senator isn't the problem but yours is, nothing will ever change.
Quoting Benjamin Franklin (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Security apparatus is now the de facto government (Score:4, Insightful)
The DHS has quietly become the KGB, with all that this implies.
There's a reason that the current Russian dictator comes directly from the old KGB. There's a reason that one of our recent former presidents came directly from the CIA.
For this reason, I'll make a big bet, that no matter what kind of election carnival is held, Jeb Bush gets elected as the next president. As the former CIA director's son, he's on their team. He's already vetted. No candidate, at this point, has a chance of winning unless they're security service friendly.
USA PATRIOT Act is an Acronym, Not a Name (Score:4, Informative)
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing the Required Tools for Intercepting and Obstructing Terrorism.
It's a hi' falootin' acronym, so it need to be capitalized. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf)
If ever there was a time to write your congressman (Score:2)
If ever there was a time for the Americans here to write to their congressman and ask that they support a particular bill, this is the time. I may not be American or know a whole lot about American politics but even I know that this is probably one of the most important bills proposed in Congress in at least a decade.
And even if by some miracle... (Score:2)
Re:You should title this "Patriot act to be repeal (Score:5, Insightful)
No. This should be titled "No chance in hell".
The people who currently control congress are the same people who created the Patriot Act.
Re:You should title this "Patriot act to be repeal (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is pathetic, because this seems to be a genuine attempt to rein in an out of control spying apparatus.
But, apparently far too many people are still thinking "well, I don't care what they have to do as long as we're safe" -- in fact, I've been told that by people.
Unfortunately, these people just think that this crap is actually keeping them safe, and utterly fail to understand the ways in which it undermines their rights.
I find it worrying that a lot of people are willing to give carte blanche to something they haven't stopped to consider what it actually means.
The world seems to be filled with too much stupid to realize what we've done, and why it needs to be undone.
Re:You should title this "Patriot act to be repeal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You should title this "Patriot act to be repeal (Score:5, Insightful)
The people of WWII Germany had the same opinion in terms of "I don't care as long as I am safe", look where it got them. In 1954 the US began playing with the same things that Hitler did, what you are seeing now are the side effects and obvious brain damage. Soviets played with the same thing and look where they are now. One cannot put the genie back in the bottle but the many could make that conscious choice, but the greed and lust for power will ultimately bring a biblical style ending to it before things will get better.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That was a quick path to Godwin's Law. Congrats.
Re: You should title this "Patriot act to be repea (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but when it lies to Congress about what it's doing ... it's really out of control.
When it spies on the people who oversee it to influence the oversight, it's out of control.
When it formalizes a mechanism of perjury by law enforcement, it's out of control.
When it hides how it uses technologies to perform warrantless wiretaps, it's out of control.
I see no evidence that any has control over these clowns. And if anybody does, nobody knows who that is to have control over them.
So, to you I say, bullshit. The spying apparatus does whatever the fuck it wants, arbitrarily decides when/if the law applies, and keeps doing what they want no matter what they're told.
These people are now quite dangerous to our freedoms and our societies.
Re: (Score:2)
mod up.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen. Surely more of a 'State of Emergency' than some sorry-ass hurricane. Oh yeah, and see about finding a President who'd veto this kind of shit, maybe roll back some of those perpetual declared emergencies too. Oops, that was Ron Paul. Better luck next time.
We should also give thought to those presently employed in these industries to ensure there is a safety net of retraining and placement. With a basic course in Constitutional Law and Civics. Those who do not score well might take advantage of the poro
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No. This should be titled "No chance in hell".
The people who currently control congress are the same people who created the Patriot Act.
Considering the Democrats who controlled both parties failed to do anything but renew it, the Republicans may be our best shot - particularly while they don't control the executive branch.
There are some (on both sides) that thought the bill was a good idea at the time but now realize how awful it really is. Additionally, a very large portion of the Republicans in Congress today were not in Congress when the first bill passed.
Re:You should title this "Patriot act to be repeal (Score:5, Insightful)
With Jeb Bush about to become the nominated leader of the party? Good luck with that.
When it comes to stuff like homeland security and defense appropriations, the parties don't matter. It's neo-cons all the way down.
Did you know that Jeb Bush has asked Howard Baker to become his senior advisor?
It's gonna take a much bigger shift in government than just a one party or the other taking over to get rid of the Patriot Act.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeb is a long way from being nominated. The funny thing is that one of the bigger obstacles in the way is that another neo-con, Lindsey Graham, being on the fence about running is preventing Jeb from consolidating some crucial support from past Bush advisers. At any rate, this nomination contest is going to determine a lot about the future direction and viability of the Republican Party, and it's not looking very promising for freedom-lovers everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeb is a long way from being nominated. The funny thing is that one of the bigger obstacles in the way is that another neo-con, Lindsey Graham
Besides matters of defense, I don't think many people see either one of those people as neo cons
Re: (Score:2)
I think of neocons as those who followed George W Bush as military hawks who paid lip service to social and fiscal conservatives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Career-wise he has paid lip service to those factions until the past few years when they have become more extreme. I live in his home state and not far from his original House district, so I remember him as a House freshman elected under Gingrich's Contract with America in '94, and I remember him pushing the Defense of Marriage Act in '97.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm..so, what's so extreme about that?
PLENTY of people still agree with that one. I don't think the majority of the US is that much gay friendly at this point in time.
Re: (Score:2)
and I remember him pushing the Defense of Marriage Act in '97.
So did Clinton as well as 118 Democrats on the hill and 32 senators.
Not the best example to give.
That said, I have an extreme dislike for Graham and wish he would just leave politics altogether so we can get another Cruz/Walker type person in office.
Re: (Score:2)
Graham's bread and butter is military. He's been in the reserves for a long time. In the 90s he was a pretty typical conservative all around. He's gotten a reputation for working across the aisle over the past decade, notably on immigration, and that's gotten him into trouble in Republican primaries here. His recent comments that he'd use the military against Congress to get things done if he were president has him in my dog house, so I won't be voting for him in any presidential race. Most residents h
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say he was extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like in any other group he'd look like a raging lunatic, but in the current GOP he sounds like a moderate.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got it.
Re: (Score:2)
The public is moving inexorably toward acceptance of gay marriage.
Check the historical data:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117... [gallup.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Like they coronated her in 2008? Every cycle there's a frontrunner for president who fails to get a nomination. There is a very good chance that one of the eventual nominees is someone who hasn't gotten mainstream press yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Like they coronated her in 2008?
No, in 2008, the coronated Obama. It was so bad that SNL did a sketch on it [nbc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he'll get the Nomination.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't honestly see Jeb as having that much a chance, at least not if it were done today.
That Bush name is a serious impediment....and there are some other candidates that many like better than him.
I also think there are a lot of folks in the US that just do not want another dynasty name in there, no more Clintons or Bushes.
Re: (Score:2)
He's winning the money primary, which is the only one that really matters.
Well, there's the problem, isn't it? It just doesn't matter that folks in the US think when it comes to US elections. The decisions are always made for us long before election day.
Re:You should title this "Patriot act to be repeal (Score:5, Insightful)
No. This should be titled "No chance in hell".
The people who currently control congress are the same people who created the Patriot Act.
Considering the Democrats who controlled both parties failed to do anything but renew it, the Republicans may be our best shot - particularly while they don't control the executive branch.
There are some (on both sides) that thought the bill was a good idea at the time but now realize how awful it really is. Additionally, a very large portion of the Republicans in Congress today were not in Congress when the first bill passed.
That's like saying "We failed to find snow in hell so our best chance now is to find it on the surface of the sun"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republicans have already voted to renew it, so while I applaud this effort, and support them, it's highly unlikely that this will be able to gain any real traction unless there's a groundswell of support and this isn't about gays or guns so there's little likelihood. Cons will say it's "libtards being soft on terrorists" libs will say it's "redumbakins just doing it for politics" Our problem isn't our politicians, it's us, America as a country really needs to do some introspection about what we want Ame
Re: (Score:3)
The horrible evil and completely corrupt people who currently control congress are the same people who created the Patriot Act.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would in principle support reigning in on the patriot act, and possibly this bill. However, something tells me "This bill might be a trap", an item with no chance of passing; but either they want to figure out who will support the bill, so they can start investigating these people, or they will bury some Trojan horses in the bill itself in order to kill.
A congressperson votes for the bill, then they will be immediately under investigation as 'an enemy of the state' and attempts by the executive in res
Re: (Score:2)
I would in principle support reigning in on the patriot act, and possibly this bill.
However, something tells me "This bill might be a trap", an item with no chance of passing; but either they want to figure out who will support the bill, so they can start investigating these people, or they will bury some Trojan horses in the bill itself in order to kill.
A congressperson votes for the bill, then they will be immediately under investigation as 'an enemy of the state' and attempts by the executive in response to undermine that person's support.
Will folks be shipped off to Guantanamo, for petitioning their representative in support?
We live in paranoid times, it's true. And a lot of things that people didn't want to believe about the US Government have been demonstrated to be fact.
But I don't think we're quite that far gone yet. I'd rather take the risk. Besides, how many people can Cuba hold?
Re:You should title this "Patriot act to be repeal (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it, largely because of who is sponsoring this. Specifically, Mark Pocan, who is my representative and who has been a prominent state representative for many years. From what I've seen of his record (and from actually running into him and talking to him at the liquor store), he would be one of the least likely people to perform this kind of trap. .
Now, if others take this as an opportunity to see who m
Re: (Score:2)
There is no person is either house of Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor department heads, who is not continuously under investigation by the Obama administration. The result is extortion ( Justice Robert's vote on Obamacare ) or publicity (refer to the Petraeus case.).
Re:You should title this "Patriot act to be repeal (Score:5, Insightful)
10 years ago I would have called this tin foil hat material, now I'm not so sure.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about whether or not the bill would pass, but about speaking up.
Also, Google is gathering signatures for surveillance reform here:
https://takeaction.withgoogle.... [withgoogle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The businesses that own those congressmen are being negatively impacted by the surveillance state. The US can no longer be taken seriously for security products globally because the NSA has to have a finger in every pie, and a plethora of vulnerabilities in every product.
We have the best government many can buy. It just takes time for that money to get in the hands of the large multinational corporations who can be trusted to take the most profit
Re:You should title this "Patriot act to be repeal (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's a worn-out analogy, but look at the fight to decriminalize cannabis. One activist told a reporter in an interview that years ago, one could not even discuss the issue in polite company, and now it's been taken to its logical conclusion in a handful of states. If these people had just given up and said "no chance in hell", we would still have the status quo from years ago.
Therefore, I'm glad that *someone* in the halls of power is standing up for the little man, even if things look extremely bleak for his cause today.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I wouldn't think there would be many people who would be in both groups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1... [wikipedia.org]
It has after all been 13 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Mark Pocan is openly gay, it wouldn't be too much of a scandal to discover that he might have gay sex. Probably not with Thomas Massie, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a scandal for Massie, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In Other News (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
House Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) caught up in gay sex scandal according to anonymous government sources.
Future Testimony, House of Representatives-Government Oversight Committee
"I don't know, maybe some rogue extremist US intelligence operatives were taking a Predator out for a stroll one night and decided to fire a couple Hellfires at some US Representatives they disagreed with!
What, at this point, does it matter?"
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no information relating to a United States person may be acquired pursuant to this Act without a valid warrant based on probable cause.''.
Re: (Score:2)
" Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not mandate that the manufacturer of an electronic device or software for an electronic device build into such device or software a mechanism that allows the Federal Government to bypass the encryption or privacy technology of such device or software."