PDA

View Full Version : USA Freedom Act passes House




GunnyFreedom
05-13-2015, 04:32 PM
From my AP Breaking News app, no link provided. I could probably find the story hosted elsewhere if I were on my desktop instead of my phone. :p

Update at 6:03 PM
By: KEN DILANIAN


WASHINGTON (AP) - The House voted by a wide margin Wednesday to end the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone records and replace it with a system to search the data held by telephone companies on a case-by-case basis.
The 338-to-88 vote set the stage for a Senate showdown just weeks before the Patriot Act provisions authorizing the program are due to expire.
If the House bill becomes law, it will represent one of the most significant changes stemming from the unauthorized disclosures of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. But many Senate Republicans don't like the measure, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has introduced a separate version that would keep the program as is. Yet, he also faces opposition from within his party and has said he is open to compromise.
President Barack Obama supports the House legislation, known as the USA Freedom Act, which is in line with a proposal he made last March. The House passed a similar bill last year, but it failed in the Senate.
Most House members would rather see the Patriot Act provisions expire altogether than re-authorize NSA bulk collection, said Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee. "I think the Senate is ultimately going to pass something like the USA Freedom Act," he said.
The issue, which exploded into public view two years ago, has implications for the 2016 presidential contest, with Republican candidates staking out different positions.
The revelation that the NSA had for years been secretly collecting all records of U.S. landline phone calls was among the most controversial disclosures by Snowden, a former NSA systems administrator who in 2013 leaked thousands of secret documents to journalists.
The program collects the number called, along with the date, time and duration of call, but not the content or people's names. It stores the information in an NSA database that a small number of analysts query for matches against the phone numbers of known terrorists abroad, hunting for domestic connections to plots.
Officials acknowledge the program has never foiled a terrorist attack, and some within the NSA had proposed abandoning it even before it leaked - on the grounds that its financial and privacy costs outweighed its counterterrorism benefits.
Proponents of keeping the program the way it is argue that the rise of the Islamic State group and its efforts to inspire Westerners to attack in their own countries make it more important than ever for the NSA and FBI to have such phone records at their disposal to map potential terrorist cells when new information surfaces. And they say there is no evidence the program has ever been misused.
Under the House measure, the NSA would no longer collect and store the records, but the government still could obtain a court order to obtain data connected to a specific number from the phone companies, which typically store them for 18 months.
If the legislation is enacted, "Americans will now rest easy knowing that their calls and other records will not be warehoused by the government, no matter how careful the government is in their procedures to access those files," said Rep. Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat on the intelligence committee.
The House measure also provides for a panel of experts to advocate for privacy and civil liberties before the secret intelligence court that oversees surveillance programs. And it allows the government to continue eavesdropping on foreign terrorists without a warrant for 72 hours after they enter the U.S., giving authorities time to obtain such a warrant.
The Senate will have a short window to act before Patriot Act provisions authorizing the phone records program and other counterterrorism-related measures expire June 1. If McConnell's bill passes to reauthorize the law with no changes, that would be seen as a crushing defeat for surveillance opponents.
On Tuesday, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers and FBI Director Jim Comey briefed senators on the program. Afterward, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee told reporters the NSA was not collecting all the data it should be. He declined to be specific, saying the briefing was classified, but he appeared to be addressing the fact that the collection does not include most mobile calls in an era when many people have stopped using landlines.
"The way it's being implemented today, I don't see how it's ... useful at all to the American people," said Corker, who wants to reauthorize the current law. "And I'm shocked, shocked ... by the small amount of data that is even part of the program. It needs to be ramped up."
U.S. officials have confirmed the mobile records gap, saying it stemmed from technical and policy issues that ultimately would have been addressed absent the Snowden leak. Under the House's USA Freedom Act, they said, the NSA would expand its queries to include mobile records, creating a potentially more effective program. But they have expressed concerns about working out an arrangement with phone providers to standardize the data so the information can quickly be searched.
Those officials, not authorized to comment publicly by name, spoke only on condition of anonymity.

GunnyFreedom
05-13-2015, 04:48 PM
http://www.fox10tv.com/story/29056123/house-passes-bill-to-end-bulk-collection-of-us-phone-records

Uriel999
05-13-2015, 06:06 PM
Maybe it is a start? I dunno. Even if 100% of the House voted for it, 100% of the Senate, and even Obama signed it and said it was great...the NSA is STILL going to do whatever they want.

William Tell
05-13-2015, 06:08 PM
There's a reason Ron, Rand, and Justin Amash all oppose it.

pcosmar
05-13-2015, 06:22 PM
Freedom Act,,, is an act. (and it has nothing to do with freedom)

Occam's Banana
05-13-2015, 06:24 PM
Maybe it is a start? I dunno. Even if 100% of the House voted for it, 100% of the Senate, and even Obama signed it and said it was great...the NSA is STILL going to do whatever they want. This. Congress and POTUS are mostly just for show. But things like this are still useful and important - if only because the executive bureaucracy's continued shenanigans to the contrary will expose, to at least a few more of those who are willing to see, the ultimate impotence of the aforementioned. And each person who comes to realize this, over time, is one more straw for the camel's back ...

wizardwatson
05-13-2015, 06:24 PM
Freedom Act,,, is an act. (and it has nothing to do with freedom)

Eternal Salvation Act coming soon.

LatinsforPaul
05-13-2015, 06:26 PM
There's a reason Ron, Rand, and Justin Amash all oppose it.

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/891677487538325


Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the bulk telephone metadata program run by the National Security Agency (NSA) is not authorized by Section 215 of the Patriot Act and is thus unlawful. The ruling is a big win for privacy and civil liberties advocates who have long argued that Section 215 clearly does not contemplate the type of mass collection we now know is occurring. But the win will be short-lived if H.R. 2048, the latest version of the USA FREEDOM Act that’s scheduled to be considered by the House of Representatives this afternoon, becomes law.
Section 215 authorizes the government to collect records and other “tangible things” that are "relevant" to a terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. To support the bulk collection of data pertaining to millions of law-abiding Americans, the government has effectively claimed that all records everywhere are potentially relevant to a current or future investigation, and thus all records are fair game for collection. In its ruling, the Second Circuit had little choice but to reject the government's broad interpretation of "relevant," given that the rest of the statute gives no indication Congress ever contemplated collection on such a mass scale.
So far, so good.
But H.R. 2048 threatens to undo much of the progress resulting from the Second Circuit’s opinion. The bill's sponsors, and unfortunately some outside advocacy groups, wrongly claim that H.R. 2048 ends "bulk" collection. It's true that the bill ends the phone dragnet as we currently know it—by having the phone companies themselves hold, search, and analyze certain data at the request of the government, which is worse in many ways given the broader set of data the companies hold—but H.R. 2048 actually expands the statutory basis for the large-scale collection of most data.
H.R. 2048 does this by authorizing the government to order the production of records based upon a “specific selection term” (i.e., like a search term used in a search engine). The records sought still must be relevant to an investigation, so it’s possible the court’s ruling will continue to restrain the government in some fashion. But it’s more likely a court looking at H.R. 2048’s language will see the “specific selection term” as defining the outer limits of what Congress considers acceptably “relevant” under Section 215.
Indeed, the Second Circuit encouraged Congress in reforming Section 215 to make a “congressional judgment as to what is ‘reasonable’ under current circumstances.” Unfortunately, “specific selection term” is defined so broadly under the bill as to have little effect on narrowing the scope of items the government may obtain through a 215 order.
A “specific selection term” may be a specific person (including a corporation, such as Western Union), account, address, or personal device, but it also may be “any other specific identifier,” and the bill expressly contemplates using geographic regions or communication service providers (such as Verizon) to define the records sought, so long as it's not the only identifier used as part of the specific selection term. In other words, the bill doesn't let the government require Verizon to turn over all its records without limitation, but nothing appears to prevent the government from requiring Verizon to turn over all its records for all its customers in the state of New York. Only a politician or bureaucrat wouldn't call that "bulk."
H.R. 2048 gives our intelligence agencies, for the first time, statutory authority to collect Americans’ data in bulk. In light of the Second Circuit’s opinion that the NSA has been collecting our information in bulk without statutory authority for all this time, it would be a devastating misstep for Congress to pass a bill that codifies that bulk collection and likely ensures no future court will ever again be positioned to rule against the government for over-collecting on statutory grounds.
H.R. 2048 falls woefully short of reining in the mass collection of Americans’ data, and it takes us a step in the wrong direction by specifically authorizing such collection in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Americans, and members of Congress, should demand that Congress instead pass the original, bipartisan version of the USA FREEDOM Act from 2013, which strengthened—not weakened—Section 215’s relevance standard to end bulk collection, while still allowing the government the flexibility it needs to pursue genuine threats against the United States.

GunnyFreedom
05-13-2015, 06:28 PM
There's a reason Ron, Rand, and Justin Amash all oppose it.

Right, it's not nearly strong enough in its prohibitions, I'm just glad the House is at least TALKING about reigning in the NSA.

I would oppose it too, because it does almost nothing while giving people this feelgood thing like something was done.

pcosmar
05-13-2015, 06:32 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyoVrt6ieyU

Uriel999
05-13-2015, 06:45 PM
I think a better act would be "Hang every employee of the NSA for High Treason Act and abolish the NSA Act of 2015."

Zippyjuan
05-13-2015, 06:47 PM
Similar bill died in the Senate last year.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/241994-house-backs-nsa-reform


McConnell’s allies include Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the White House hopeful who has emerged as a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another presidential hopeful, backs the USA Freedom Act; Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) opposes it. Paul supports allowing the existing law to expire and believes it would be better to not replace it.

Supporters of the House bill argue it would impose serious conditions on the NSA’s surveillance programs that would protect privacy.

“I'm not ignorant to the threats we face, but a clean reauthorization would be irresponsible,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who authored the legislation and also wrote the original Patriot Act. “Congress never intended Section 215 to allow bulk collection. That program is illegal and based on a blatant misinterpretation of the law.”

The bill would require the NSA to obtain a court order to look at data, which would be held by phone companies. It would also be required to ask for a “specific selection term,” so that records could not be collected in bulk.

It would place limits on other types of data collection as well, add new transparency measures to make more information public and create a special team of experts to weigh in on some unique cases before the secretive federal court that oversees intelligence programs.

That’s less than some staunch civil libertarians had hoped for, however.

Lawmakers such as Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) were blocked from proposing amendments that would have added extra legal protections for people’s emails and expanded the bill to also cover NSA programs sweeping up foreigners’ Internet data, among other areas.

“This bill did not create those problems. However, this bill doesn't correct those problems,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who supports stronger reforms.

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had also declined to support the legislation, saying that while it would offer “incremental improvements,” it “does not go nearly far enough.”

Still, many lawmakers believe the legislation is more more palatable than the status quo.

“This bill is far better than the current state of affairs,” said Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.).

The bill is similar to legislation the House approved last year, in a 303-121 vote. That measure hit a wall in the Senate, however, coming two votes shy of overcoming a filibuster led by Republican leadership.

More at link. Vote roll call not posted yet.


Forty-seven Republicans and 41 Democrats opposed the bill.

enhanced_deficit
05-13-2015, 07:07 PM
Be careful and read all the details in the bill; titles with words like "Freedom", "Patriotic" etc in them can be deceptive.

#Operation Iraqi Freedom, #Patriot Act, #ddgTransparency

pcosmar
05-13-2015, 07:31 PM
Just repeal the Patriot Act in total.. and disband the TSA..

Both very bad ideas of the Bush era,

2young2vote
05-13-2015, 08:45 PM
It calls itself the "freedom" act and therefore you should assume that it means the exact opposite.

Uriel999
05-13-2015, 08:50 PM
It calls itself the "freedom" act and therefore you should assume that it means the exact opposite.

Whoa, that is "cRaZy" talk right there!

The Northbreather
05-13-2015, 09:03 PM
Maybe it is a start? I dunno. Even if 100% of the House voted for it, 100% of the Senate, and even Obama signed it and said it was great...the NSA is STILL going to do whatever they want.
Exactly what I was going to say.

Secret, unelected government still in charge...

Slave Mentality
05-14-2015, 12:02 AM
Passing laws to "protect" us from the shit laws that they passed in the first place. And the Freedom Fry eaters rejoiced.

rg17
05-14-2015, 07:15 AM
Eternal Salvation Act coming soon.

Do you mean the Enteral Enslavment act.

enhanced_deficit
05-14-2015, 08:04 PM
Can this be delayed until trains situation is sorted out?

GunnyFreedom
05-14-2015, 08:09 PM
Can this be delayed until trains situation is sorted out?

Yeah, we are probably going to need the trains to actually make this happen.

TheTexan
05-14-2015, 08:10 PM
Freedom Act? Awesome, I love Freedom. And Acts.

William Tell
05-14-2015, 08:15 PM
Freedom Act? Awesome, I love Freedom. And Acts.

Indeed. I'm kind of surprised it took them this long to name something that. I can't wait for the Liberty Act... :rolleyes: