Senate Passes USA Freedom Act 294
schwit1 points out that the U.S. Senate has passed the USA Freedom Act by a vote of 67-32, sending it on to President Obama, who is expected to sign it into law. The bill removes mass metadata collection powers from the NSA, but also grants a new set of surveillance powers to replace them. Telecoms now hang on to that data, and the government can access it if they suspect the target is part of a terrorism investigation and one of the call's participants is overseas. "The second provision revived Tuesday concerns roving wiretaps. Spies may tap a terror suspect's communications without getting a renewed FISA Court warrant, even as a suspect jumps from one device to the next. The FISA Court need not be told who is being targeted when issuing a warrant. The third spy tool renewed is called "lone wolf" in spy jargon. It allows for roving wiretaps. However, the target of wiretaps does not have to be linked to a foreign power or terrorism."
Meet the New Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Same as the Old Act.
I wanna get fooled again!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Same as the Old Act.
I wanna get fooled again!
Now tell me again why is it that we don't need a third party in this country ?
It's a real pity we can't drop a couple of bombs on Congress. Fucking traitors that they are.
Re:Meet the New Act (Score:5, Insightful)
>Now tell me again why is it that we don't need a third party in this country ?
Because so long as we have first-past-the-post voting rules, game theory tends to render third parties irrelevant. Example: the several "third" parties that currently *do* exist in the US, but rarely if ever win elections.
So lets support Bernie Sander with money and time, probably the best chance we've got at weakening the strangle-hold the wealthy have on this country.
Re:Meet the New Act (Score:5, Informative)
My favorite explanation for those interested to learn more about what you are talking about.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic... [cgpgrey.com]
(I post this pretty much every time the subject of third parties comes up, but I feel that it's really worth getting people to understand why we as a society can't get what we actually want despite society being built on the principles of democracy.)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a good one - I'll have to add that to my list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meet the New Act (Score:4, Insightful)
Or any of the many instant-runoff or proportional representation methods. Unfortunately, as hard as the established parties will fight against limits on their wealthy gravy-train, I suspect they'll fight *much* harder against any fundamental changes to the election system they've currently captured. And considering that it would take a constitutional amendment to change the rules, I'd say it' a non-starter until we've managed to take back a measure of control over both congress and the state legislatures.
Re: (Score:3)
Australia has experimented with various alternate voting methods including compulsory voting, still get the authoritarian right wing types in government. Here in Canada (and the UK) where we also have first past the post elections, having more parties has also resulted in the authoritarian right wingers getting in leading to the tyranny of the minority situation.
Re: (Score:2)
The trend probably has more to do with Rupert Murdoch being allowed to create an international, Anglophone echo chamber (and the USA being the source of the narratives) than it has with any particular form of voting. The countries that comprise the "Five Eyes" of global mass-surveillance appear to be under the influence of a common social contagion.
Re:Meet the New Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Australia has experimented with various alternate voting methods including compulsory voting, still get the authoritarian right wing types in government.
People like authoritarian, protective governments. They like for someone to focus their fear on a particular movement or group. They like to think that something is being done about that threat. They know they're not doing anything wrong and will be untouched by those protective measures. Even if there is some small consequence, the security is worth it.
These people don't speak, so you don't know they exist. They're part of the 95% of slashdot readers who have never posted a comment. They don't have strong opinions. They are good people, always ready with a smile and a wave, always ready to help a neighbor in need, and never asking for anything in return. They just want to go about their life, and a strong, protective government with visible police and pro-active defense is very comforting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The kind of people who are willing to trade security for liberty, correct?
We can still do things to lessen the damages being done.
1. 12 year term limit for members of Congress.
2. Require congressional districts to be compact. See: Iowa. Perhaps even drawn by middle school students.
3. The top six vote-getters of the previous presidential election automatically getting ballot access to the following. This includes independent candidates.
As nice as it would be to have IRV or other voting methods, I feel that s
Re: (Score:3)
Australia has experimented with various alternate voting methods including compulsory voting, still get the authoritarian right wing types in government.
People like authoritarian, protective governments. They like for someone to focus their fear on a particular movement or group. They like to think that something is being done about that threat. They know they're not doing anything wrong and will be untouched by those protective measures. Even if there is some small consequence, the security is worth it.
These people don't speak, so you don't know they exist. They're part of the 95% of slashdot readers who have never posted a comment. They don't have strong opinions. They are good people, always ready with a smile and a wave, always ready to help a neighbor in need, and never asking for anything in return. They just want to go about their life, and a strong, protective government with visible police and pro-active defense is very comforting.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
-Blazing Saddles
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Big government is the problem
So true, first we need to get rid of the checks and balances as they're all bloat. The bureaucracy involved in things like "Freedom of Information" laws needs to be cut along with bullshit like the government having to keep records of meeting with campaign contributors and other important people.
Ideally we can reduce the government down to one man who can dictate to us how wonderful small government is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meet the New Act (Score:4, Insightful)
1984 taught you how to tar and feather well.
Libertarian does not equal anarchy. Only people opposed to freedom for others make such deceptive statements.
Re:Meet the New Act (Score:5, Informative)
I am totally, completely in favor of building up a third party to rival these two.
Speaking of parties, here is the count:
YEAs: 67 (D = 43, R = 23, I = 1)
NAYs: 32 (D = 1, R = 30, I = 1)
Not voting: 1 (R)
Republicans were slightly more against the bill, Democrats were overwhelmingly in favor of it, and the two Independents were mostly split.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh... "mostly split"... my bad, meant to edit that.
Speaking of... can Slashdot hire someone to add an Edit feature?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am totally, completely in favor of building up a third party to rival these two.
Then there can be three sets of clowns pretending to have substantively different views while all favoring the expansion of government power.
Re: (Score:2)
As N grows larger, controlling N parties or factions becomes more difficult.
So, 3 parties is better than 2. If you are suggesting we not stop at 3, then I'm with you. If for some reason you are suggesting that we give up, that we might as well give all control to one party, all I can do is completely disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your solution then? We've tried the government truly being separate from the people. We've tried having the government made up of the people and elected by the people. What else is there?
(Well, besides "no government at all"... because anyone who actually thinks anarchy will work smoothly without eventually standing up some type of authoritative stabilizing body is a bit too crazy for my taste.)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your solution then?
In the current environment, the more money you have the more access you have to influence political discussion. Money has quite effectively replaced speech. If you eliminate the role of large money "contributions" from politics, representatives will have to act in the best interest of all their constituents, not just the wealthiest, to get reelected. It's a start, anyway.
Re:Meet the New Act (Score:5, Insightful)
2% against vs. 98% for is "overwhelmingly in favor of it"
50% against vs. 50% for is "mostly split"
where's the bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't understand it the first time, repeating it just isn't going to help.
It suffices to say, he was correct in his wording...
You're I think the only person who found bias in it.. perhaps you have preconceived notions that are biasing your own viewpoint.
Re:Meet the New Act (Score:5, Insightful)
It was poorly ordered. I think the intended meaning was "slightly more against it than for it", but because of it being right after the post about the Democrats, most folks read it as "slightly more against it than the Democrats".
The biggest problem, IMO, is why the Republicans were against it. Most of them seemed to vote against it not because it gave the government too much power, but because it gave the government too little. For example, they bring us folks like Mitch McConnell claiming that the lack of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. (sic) Act is going to cause terrorism-related deaths in the U.S., rather than recognizing that the colossal resources and manpower that are going into data collection would be much more effectively spent in a more targeted way that didn't catch so many innocent people in the dragnet, and that the mere existence of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. (sic) Act that he so staunchly supports makes us more likely to miss a real terrorist threat rather than less.
Re: (Score:3)
Franken always votes with Obama, so how is that a surprise, lol. Don't know Klobuchar's excuse, probably Obama's bitch, too.
Not sure why the others opposed it, but I know why I oppose it - it allows bulk vacuuming calls made on non-phones, like Skype, VoIP, etc. and frees any company providing information to the NSA about these calls from liability. Also, extends section 215 by 4 years, has an added watchperson for FISA but any or all information can be redacted from that person, allows a nebulously defined
Where is the _FREEDOM_ in that 'usa freedom act'? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have but one question to ask:
Where is the *FREEDOM* in that 'usa freedom act'?
Re:Where is the _FREEDOM_ in that 'usa freedom act (Score:5, Funny)
In the words of Futurama: "My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom it's almost sickening. We're free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don't want to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster". That is really the only freedom you have.
Re: (Score:3)
same place as Patriot in the patriot act.
shoved really far up your ass with a nightstick.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It doesn't specify whose freedom it is. It's the NSA's freedom. It's the government's freedom.
Re:Where is the _FREEDOM_ in that 'usa freedom act (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's classic doublespeak, designed to shut down any debate or dissension. To oppose The USA Freedom act is to publicly come out against the USA and Freedom. Just like opposition to the PATRIOT act branded you an unpatriotic apple-pie-hating flag-burning radical.
It also speaks volumes about how brazen our so-called representatives have become. They don't even try hide it - It's right there in your face, and if you don't like it, too bad. There's nothing you can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Presidents authority and power is explicitly spelled out and the Congressional and Judicial branches are also clearly codified in law. A President can look strong or weak depending on how he uses his authority and power.
Re: (Score:2)
Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1.
Executive power, by definition, means overseeing the day-to-day administrative activities of the government. Executive orders whose sole purpose is to manage those day-to-day administrative activities fall very clearly within the President's authority.
Shell Game (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch the Law Closely as i cover it and mix the shells up....
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The hawks are either vicious or stupid (Score:5, Informative)
The public really lost its shit when it came out that ordinary drug dealers were being busted with NSA resources and the cops were lying their asses off to the courts.
From the polls I've seen, the public hasn't "lost its shit" yet. The majority is kind of ok with this, which is why it continues.
See also: TSA. Last time I had to go through security, I complained about the inane procedures, and the person behind me said, "yeah, but it's keeping us safe." I ended the conversation there, didn't even try to argue.
Re: (Score:2)
From the polls I've seen, the public hasn't "lost its shit" yet. The majority is kind of ok with this, which is why it continues.
The media regularly conducts polls to obtain feedback measuring effectiveness of their professional trolling, fear mongering and propaganda campaigns.
Re: (Score:2)
I ended the conversation there, didn't even try to argue.
Did you at least laugh right in their face?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it is keeping us safe you moron
Really? http://www.theverge.com/2015/6... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. It is keeping those folks employed so they aren't knocking over gas stations.
Ahh, I see the light!
The TSA is protecting us... from its employees.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That statute would be the freedom version of Security Theater.
There is no way to prevent Agents of the Executive Branch from giving tips to law enforcement. It's called the First Amendment, and it applies to everyone. You could prevent them from sending actual data files from work over, but a simple phone call saying "Mr. FBI Man, you really should get a warrant to look at this phone number for drug smuggling," or "Mr. FBI Man, this guy is talking to some terrorists" cannot be prevented by statute. It's sim
Re: (Score:2)
Please. Most people don't do drugs. Ordinary people didn't care about this until Snowden told John Oliver the NSA could look at pictures of their genitals.
How true and sad. Although, I still thank the person who allowed me to look at Jennifer Lawrence's.genitals.
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The FISA Court need not be told who is being targeted when issuing a warrant."
why the fuck not!
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, if they can show probable cause that something (info regarding terrorism) will be found somewhere (on a phone call), they're not required to (unless they're seizing a person). And why not? The person's identity may be unknown, maybe that's what they're searching for.
What does "not linked to terrorism" mean? (Score:2)
A terror suspect not linked to terrorism?
I think they mean terrorist NGOs like ISIS that aren't "foreign powers?" Or maybe it's for general FISA Court-approved warrants with no link to terror?
Re: What does "not linked to terrorism" mean? (Score:3)
Not linked to terrorism = and anyone else we samn please
Re: (Score:2)
It means they're going to shove a red hot poker up the ass of anyone found to not be sufficiently consumerist in the proper manner.
Crack addicts (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't think the government was going to give up their addiction to surveillance crack that easily, did you?
Re: (Score:2)
You know, even if they hadn't passed this I'd never be stupid enough to believe they weren't spying on me. Only an idiot would think they would stop that. That isn't what pisses me off though. What infuriates me is the fucking cocksucking slut bastards called it the USA Freedom Act. Of all the unmitigated gall! I hope the ass-eaters catch a disease that rots their crotches and grows their assholes shut. Freedom Act my hairy ass. That's like the "People's" Republic of China they seek to emulate.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't think the government was going to give up their addiction to surveillance crack that easily, did you?
Well, you could always turn the crackpipe around on them and let them burn their lips. The equipment is available to anyone. Used/refurbished, even.
http://www.testequipmentdepot.... [testequipmentdepot.com]
Stream the data realtime to storage in a non-Five-Eyes nation. Maybe Ecuador? They are not too happy with the US/Airstrip One about now.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny that both sides are blaming the other for this. They're both fucking you.
Hope and Change (Score:2)
Move along citizen, freedom service has now been restored, no need to sign or even see the EULA.
Of course they did ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... it's the goddam Freedom Act.
It's like calling it the "Save The Little Kitty Cats Act."
Re: (Score:3)
... it's the goddam Freedom Act.
It's like calling it the "Save The Little Kitty Cats Act."
The Terrorists envy our freedom so this law takes what remains and holds it for safekeeping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It gives the NSA the freedom to violate the constitution and do whatever the fuck they want.
This is a good thing. (Score:2)
Now maybe people will actually bother using their email encryption and secure VoIP services and anonymized Tor routers and all of that fun stuff now that you KNOW that they're tracking you. Even moreso now that the telecom companies are in charge of collecting your data, since I trust them less than the NSA.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how bad the things the NSA and its lackies do inside the national borders, the worse stuff happens elsewhere.
How do you think they keep their hands clean? Egypt and even Syria have been client states for rendering prisoners for torture methods the CIA didn't stoop to. Raw recorded phone conversations between US citizens have been handed over to Mossad. They use different governments and nations as shells in their game, and ultimately, place on the hierarchy of power and fear, from bottom to top
If you like ironic titles, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
If our Congressmen had been in the Bundestag in the 1930s, they would have passed something like the "Freedom for Jews Act".
In other words... (Score:2)
...they just passed the cost of retaining all that metadata to the telcos. I pity the telcos.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a misconception a lot of people have about the metadata collection programs. I read an article this morning that said the phone companies are and have been keeping metadata saved for 18 months, after which the data is (supposedly) deleted and overwritten. They're not paying any extra costs to do this, other than perhaps having to hire a few more compliance personnel to ensure that they're meeting the standards of the Freedom Act.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah cause telco's won't enjoy passing the "service fee" downwards to poor shlubs that think they are the customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it gets better.
Too many forget we've been down this particular road before, and it ended with congress granting immunity to telecos for illegally supplying data without a warrant and woe be onto you if you question it like Quest.
That was the start of Obama's campaign, which he voted for immunity. Hilary as I recall voted against.
And now we're here, with everyone's data an open target.
The telcos have *always* done this -- phone bills (Score:2)
...they just passed the cost of retaining all that metadata to the telcos. I pity the telcos.
The telcos have *always* done this. Phone number making the call, phone number being called, date/time call made, duration of call ... sound familiar? That's the info on your phone bill. The phone companies have always hung on to this metadata for well over a year.
The *only* thing new was providing the government direct unrestricted access to this billing data so that the government could build an association graph of phone numbers.
Please stop propogating lies (Score:5, Informative)
"The bill removes mass metadata collection powers from the NSA"
Unanimous 2nd circuit decision says no, original authors of the patriot act say no. Yet media completely ignores the issue and assumes without question patriot act authorized any such thing to begin with.
Third party doctrine predates the patriot act and Hayden goes around publically gloating Article II powers stemming from Bush era AUMF is the source of his authority.
Even if patriot act were left to expire wholesale without "USA Freedom Act" resurrection those against this FUD powered insanity were never even in the game.
Re: (Score:2)
and he has a document from the White House Council to prove its legitimacy. badges... we don't need no stinkin badges... or laws or authority when righteousness is on our side
Re: (Score:2)
Out of scope? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the point of the NSA was that they were meant to protect domestic communications from external threats. If the target is not linked to external threats, how can it be justified?
Re: (Score:2)
God wills it
Re:Out of scope? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the point of the NSA was that they were meant to protect domestic communications from external threats. If the target is not linked to external threats, how can it be justified?
It doesn't have to be justified. That's the whole point of the Patriot Act and USA Freedom Act. If it were justified, that means they had probable cause and could get a normal warrant and wouldn't need the USA Freedom Act.
Follow the Money (Score:3)
This will be a financial boon to the telecom industry. The black budgets are going to have to come up with money to pay for the storage and retrieval by the telcos. I expect this to be quite profitable for them. There are also going to be some nice contracts for redesigning the systems now that the stakeholders have changed.
Nothing new here -- its the billing data (Score:2)
This will be a financial boon to the telecom industry. The black budgets are going to have to come up with money to pay for the storage and retrieval by the telcos. I expect this to be quite profitable for them. There are also going to be some nice contracts for redesigning the systems now that the stakeholders have changed.
No. There is nothing new here at all with respect to phone company infrastructure or practices. The metadata is basically what is on your phone bill. The phone companies have always hung on to this data for years. The only new thing that happened was granting the government direct unrestricted access to this data.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the telcos aren't going to suck at the federal teat for all they're worth, it's you that's a fucking retard.
Freedom is worth $1.05 (Score:4, Insightful)
Team America: World Police.
Seriously, though, we all know (or those of us with CT experience), that the only programs that have worked are those in the Middle East and nearby countries. Spying on Americans in America has proved very worthless. Traditional police investigations using targetted individual warrants and traditional police interrogation (not torture) have resulted in all the successes to date.
We need to stop wasting time on promoting Fear to justify wasting taxes on unneeded spying and focus on the true threats, which are not here.
That said, expect numerous false flag media reports over the next few weeks in a vain attempt to prove we should all live in Fear.
How about (Score:3)
And for others to foot the bill.... (Score:3)
Nice to force companies to have to spend more money spontaneously to hang on to this data.
Nice clandestine tax on an entire industry.
Welp (Score:2)
Rand Paul seems like the best option. Too bad the presidential race is an American Idol contest.
This is why it needs to be mandatory for all congress people who vote for 'insert bill', how much money was donated by who/what causes... there to be publicly displayed... oh wait there will never be a law for that because it conflicts with their interests.
Commercial Company (Score:3)
Now the phone companies can (outragously over) charge the NSA for handling it's customer tracking information service requests.
And bill for the increase in consultant manpower to handle the new processes.
Using a surplus government data center in Utah for cheap.
Wait until the consultants & employees start spying on their wives, husbands, girlfriends, boy friends, coworkers, ex's of all types, children, and any competetion.
Not just 1984, but totally global corporate warfare !
Wouldn't you like to play a nice game of chess ?
With a name like freedom.... (Score:2)
It has to be good.
Whoever came up with that title (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever came up with that title had read 1984 [goodreads.com]
Yep, it does appear that 1984 is the manual they're using. That's what that book was for, right? A manual for the government to use?
Re:Rand who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said in a previous thread, an alternative plan had already been laid out, so the old one could be allowed to die... with great public fanfare from Mr. Paul, and everybody comes out stinking like a rose. You are absolutely right, hardly anybody sees the big picture. That is what these little side shows are for. I can assure you that if he had any real power, he would not be biting these peoples' ankles. Once you hit the big time, you don't go around tipping apple carts. And it did accomplish nothing but
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly are Harry Reid and Obama doing about the situation? Oh yeah - they're droning on and on about the embarrassment the current Senate majority is
Oh for Pete's sake... BOTH OF THOSE BILLS HAD MAJORITY SUPPORT. How is that not an embarrassment? The very existence of the Patriot Act, now the Freedom Act, is humiliating.
Re:Rand who? (Score:5, Insightful)
He single-handedly blocked continuation of authorization of mass metadata collection. That's what he did. A whole hell of a lot more than any of those other pukes did. You don't see mass metadata collection being re-authorized by this new act, do you? That's right. It's not.
Yeah, this new act sucks. And guess what? It passed on the strength of democrats being in the tank by an absurd 43-1 margin. Republicans opposed it by 30-23.
Re:Rand who? (Score:5, Insightful)
He single-handedly blocked continuation of authorization of mass metadata collection.
That is not true.
The Freedom Act, nor any amendments that passed committee (none of them, to McConnell's dismay) allowed for that. The bill was designed to reform the metadata collection, and it did so.
Now don't get me wrong- it's awesome that he stood up and blocked this horse shit for 11 hours, but he didn't stop the tide, nor did he have the power to.
Re:Rand who? (Score:4, Interesting)
What part of what has been going on did you not understand?
Section 215 of the Patsiot Act, the one that authorized mass metadata collection, sunseted on Monday at 0000 hours because Rand Paul blocked Bitch McConnell railroading in a clean extension. It has been dead since then. Kaput. It was well on the way to being adjudicated unconstitutional anyway, but that has been 13 years coming, and still not 100% settled. Thanks to Rand Paul - and nobody else - that thing is now dead, regardless of whether the constitutionality is ever 100% settled.
It was dead Monday, and it is still dead. The Freedom Act did not re-enact it. Bitch was trying to sneak in an extension so it wouldn't have to be re-enacted, but the son of a bitch got his ass handed to him by Rand. It is no less dead after passage of the Freedom Act horse shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Again- all he did was prevent McConnell from putting in a vote for extending the Patriot Act, which wasn't going to happen. Nobody thought that was going to happen.
To begrudgingly quote Ted Cruz, "It is abundantly clear that a clean reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act ain
Opposing Reps wanted more Patriot Act (Score:2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
The opposition to the bill, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), prompted an intraparty standoff that exposed sharp splits along philosophical and generational lines, and between the two chambers on Capitol Hill.
The bill passed by a wide margin in the House last month but languished as those who sought to maintain the status quo, led by McConnell, tried to stare down Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and the other senators who supported either ending or reforming the most controversial provisions of the surveillance programs.
"It does not enhance the privacy protections of American citizens, and it surely compromises American security by taking one more tool from our war fighters, in my view, at exactly the wrong time," McConnell said Tuesday, minutes before colleagues rejected a series of amendments he favored.
"This is the Senate, and members are entitled to different views, and members have tools to assert those views. Itâ(TM)s the nature of the body where we work," McConnell said Tuesday morning. "But what's happened has happened, and we are where we are. Now is the time to put all that in the past and work together to diligently make some discrete and sensible improvements to the House bill."
They included extending the transition away from bulk collection to one year
Damn laptop... posted mid quote (Score:2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
They included extending the transition away from bulk collection to one year in order, in McConnell's words, to "ensure that there is adequate time .â.â. to build and test a system that doesn't yet exist." Another required telecom companies to notify the government if they change their data-retention policies.
On the Senate floor, his allies continued to rail against the House bill, arguing that it would hamstring the national security apparatus at a time of significant and emerging global threats.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, called Snowden a "traitor to the United States" who has "put the lives of Americans and foreigners at risk," while Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) doubted whether the new system established by the bill would do any more to protect Americans' privacy by keeping the records out of government hands.
"The telecom companies sell our personal data, including our names, our phone numbers, our addresses, to the highest bidder for telemarketing and other purposes, and some of that data ends up in the hands of con artists," she said, adding, "The fact is that the House bill substantially weakens a vital tool in our counterterrorism efforts at a time when the terrorist threat has never been higher."
Just before the final vote around 4 p.m. Tuesday, McConnell took the floor to defend his moves to preserve the existing surveillance programs. He also lambasted Obama's foreign policy, calling the end of the phone-data program the latest in a series of missteps that includes his decisions to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and to seek the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
"The pattern is clear," McConnell said. "The president has been a reluctant commander in chief."
The pattern is QUITE clear indeed.
Re:Rand who? (Score:4, Informative)
Spin it any way you want, the fact stands that an evil, bad bill failed Republican support 23-30 and won Democrat support 43-1. Period. Live with it.
There are plenty of people, Republicans and others, who want to stamp out islamists carrying on war against the US and all civilized parts of the world, but we don't want to trample the rights and protections of innocents to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were a competition between republicans and democrats, the republicans would have won this round. Unfortunately both parties suck so hard that I would be ashamed to be on either side.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I wouldn't be bragging about this if I were a republican. Being better than the democrats only once in a while is pretty pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing new, and one wonders what the "telecoms" are doing with the metadata.
"Telcoms" use this metadata for a little thing called billing
Re: (Score:2)
And much more I'm sure.
Yes, analyzing the phone network utilization and capacity. Again, nothing mysterious nor new.
All that was new was granting the government direct unrestricted access so that the government could create an association graph.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Doublethink straight out of 1984.