Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NSA Surveillance Reform Bill Passes House 303 Votes To 121

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the better-than-nothing dept.

United States 208

First time accepted submitter strangeintp (892348) writes "The first legislation aimed specifically at curbing US surveillance abuses revealed by Edward Snowden passed the House of Representatives on Thursday, with a majority of both Republicans and Democrats. But last-minute efforts by intelligence community loyalists to weaken key language in the USA Freedom Act led to a larger-than-expected rebellion by members of Congress, with the measure passing by 303 votes to 121. The bill's authors concede it was watered down significantly in recent days but insist it will still outlaw the practice of bulk collection of US telephone metadata by the NSA first revealed by Snowden."

cancel ×

208 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slow clap (5, Funny)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | about 2 months ago | (#47070279)

*clap* *clap* *clap*

Re:Slow clap (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070291)

Didn't you read the part about how watered down it became? There's nothing to clap about, unless someone gave you a reach around as you were being cornholed. Oh, and let's find out who the 121 douches were that voted against this.

Re:Slow clap (5, Informative)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | about 2 months ago | (#47070307)

That's the slow clap. It's sarcastic applause.

Re:Slow clap (3)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47070525)

That's the slow clap. It's sarcastic applause.

Yes, and well-deserved. They weasel-worded it out of any teeth. Or many, anyway.

How did our Congress become such a bunch of administration brown-noses? Seriously. What is wrong with them?

Re:Slow clap (4, Insightful)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 2 months ago | (#47070697)

How did our Congress become such a bunch of administration brown-noses? Seriously. What is wrong with them?

You mean if you were in Congress, you wouldn't be afraid of the NSA? I'm afraid of them, and I'm just a regular guy with no power.

Re:Slow clap (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47070877)

Did you read it? did you read the part where they removed loop holes fro the Senate version? no?
of course not that would mean you would have to think.

Re:Slow clap (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070983)

That's the slow clap. It's sarcastic applause.

Yes, and well-deserved. They weasel-worded it out of any teeth. Or many, anyway.

How did our Congress become such a bunch of administration brown-noses? Seriously. What is wrong with them?

Obama - aka Bush III - was going to veto it otherwise. That's his leverage, and it appears he used it.

Re:Slow clap (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070375)

Oh, and let's find out who the 121 douches were that voted against this.

Here you go: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll230.xml [house.gov]

Re:Slow clap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070401)

Glad my state had both Yeas. (MI)

Re:Slow clap (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 2 months ago | (#47070489)

No, Bentivolio and Amash were nays. Michigan has more [wikipedia.org] than just two seats.

BFDâ¦. (5, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 months ago | (#47070599)

Big Fucking Deal, it passes.

From what I've heard of what passed, not only does it NOT have any teeth to it, but it is written so broadly that with secret judges giving secret interpretations (even the secret judges don't consult with each other I"m led to believe), this could likely give the NSA and other TLA agencies *more* leeway to get creative in the work of crushing the US citizens' rights.

C'mon folks, no matter who is currently in office, D or R, please this time around vote for anyone other than the incumbent, and let's sweep the house and senate clean over the next couple years and start from scratch.

Re:BFDâ¦. (2)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 2 months ago | (#47070805)

And probably will be circumvented by imperial decre... sorry Presidential Executive order.

Re:BFDâ¦. (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47070887)

"From what I've heard of what passed,"
heard from who? people with apolitical axe to grind maybe?

let me know when you can accurately say:
"From what I've read of what passed, "

Then we can discuss which part you don't like.

Re:Slow clap (3, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 months ago | (#47070831)

I think there were other reasons to vote against it, if only because Lloyd Doggett is one of the most liberal members of the house.

Indeed, daily kos calls the watered-down bill "an authorization of domestic spying in violation of the 4th amendment" and is congratulating the 121 members who had the backbone to vote against it.

So I think your attack on (at least part of) the 121 is unfounded; they are a mix of those who refused to authorize spying with those who thought existing law was great. Likewise, the 303 who approved are probably a mix of those who thought this "reining in" was better than nothing, along with the truly evil who did the closed-door rewrite to make it mostly ineffective.

Re:Slow clap (3, Insightful)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 2 months ago | (#47070879)

Agreed. Since King of NY and Rogers of MI - who have the NSA's hand so far up their backsides - voted YEA I'm inclined to say the NAYS are close to being Patriots.

Re:Slow clap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070419)

Didn't you read the part about how watered down it became? There's nothing to clap about, unless someone gave you a reach around as you were being cornholed. Oh, and let's find out who the 121 douches were that voted against this.

Hey, at least it wasn't outright rejected by Harry Reid, like the bill passed by the House today that would have cleaned up the Veterans Administration. But the dems don't want to acknowledge that socialized medicine isn't working for the VA while they're trying to shove it onto the rest of us.

(captcha: "enemas". lol)

Re:Slow clap (1)

Ziest (143204) | about 2 months ago | (#47070541)

Friend, I'm guessing that you have never served in the military. If you have, please tell us which branch and where were you stationed.

Re: Slow clap (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070595)

Dude, the fucking sponsor was among the nays. It wasn't "watered down": it was castrated and then turned into a pro-NSA bill that continues the status quo and adds more time in for parts of the PATRIOT act. We should find out who did that to this bill and piblicize their names with infamy from now until the next election.

Re: Slow clap (2)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 months ago | (#47070841)

And that's why it was done behind closed doors.

Re:Slow clap (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070619)

Some of the no votes were protests against how watered down the bill was.

Re:Slow clap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070427)

yeah, real great.... they promise to stop collecting meta-data.... so now they'll just collect EVERYTHING ELSE... full audio of every call.... don't store the meta-data of the phone numbers... associate those numbers to CitizenIDs and store those instead.

laws are for gurls who can't aim a gun.

you're a bunch of sissies.

Re:Slow clap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070825)

Yeah, like you'll ever lift a damned finger.

Re:Slow clap (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 months ago | (#47070865)

Careful there, they're recording the metadata on that clap, and if you're in the Bahamas or one other unnamed country, they'll keep the sound on file up to a month!

(I hope my joke doesn't seem like I'm trivializing it. I'll give $20 to the EFF in penance the next time I have $20 to spare)

Told you that you were serfs (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47070305)

Wait.

Even serfs had the right to have their own advocate.

You're not serfs.

Re:Told you that you were serfs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070481)

Representatives ARE our advocates. It's in their goddamned name. Your quip sounded so fucking deep though. Fuck off Affleck. You were NOT the bomb in Phantoms,yo!

Re:Told you that you were serfs (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47070759)

try using a dictionary and look up advocate.

then go ask a lawyer what it means.

you're welcome.

Re:Told you that you were serfs (3, Funny)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 months ago | (#47070491)

Its funny, during the last election I made a facebook comment about us being serfs; and an old friend of mine who has spent entirely more time than leads to employability in the academic study of pre-rennassaince europe chimed in with quite a rant about how it was an insult to actual serfdom.

Re:Told you that you were serfs (4, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 2 months ago | (#47070569)

Your friend got shitty grades in those pre-renaissance Europe classes. The defining characteristic of the serf class was that people born serfs would live their entire lives as serfs and their children would too. There was no pathway to move up classes.

It's difficult to move up in classes in modern America, but it's possible. Two of our last three Presidents were raised by poor single mothers. Dr. Dre grew up in Compton and just made a billion dollars.

Actual serfs would have given anything for the rights, representation, and social mobility that we bitch about.

Re:Told you that you were serfs (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47070751)

Serfs had the right to have an advocate present.

American citizens don't.

Serfs could not be killed without judicial order.

American citizens can.

Comprende?

Re:Told you that you were serfs (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 2 months ago | (#47070857)

Bullshit. Just because those rights were written on a piece of paper doesn't mean serfs actually saw any of those rights. If the Lord walked into your hut and raped your wife, what would you do? File a grievance with this advocate? Come on.

"You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you."

Does that ring any bells with you?

Re:Told you that you were serfs (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47070899)

But you don't have the right to an attorney.

The NSA can Unconstitutionally collect information on you without a court order or the right to have an advocate rebut any secret court orders to collect information on your American citizen self in the USA.

Think about that.

You "think" you have a right.

But you don't ACTUALLY have that right.

Serfs had that right.

Re:Told you that you were serfs (4, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 2 months ago | (#47070933)

No, they did not. The nobility could and did take whatever they wanted and there was no recourse. What you're spouting is a pipe dream concocted by academia to belittle today.

Re:Told you that you were serfs (0)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47070969)

you're still "entitled" to less than a serf's legal rights.

and at the end of the day, that means a serf had more rights than you do

Re:Told you that you were serfs (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 months ago | (#47070867)

I'm sorry it's a stupid movie example, but the fact that a few from luck and/or skill get to move up doesn't make the rest of the system okay. It's like saying there's no oppression in The Hunger Games because game winners become rich celebrities.

A step in the right direction (1)

Dylan Critchfield (2882653) | about 2 months ago | (#47070315)

As watered down as the bill may be, it's nice to see congress at least trying to push things in the right direction for once. Will this bill have a major impact? Maybe. Does it pave the way for more laws against mass surveillance? One can hope.

Re:A step in the right direction (5, Insightful)

ilikenwf (1139495) | about 2 months ago | (#47070331)

They aren't, this is all for appearance sake for elections, so that they can say "I voted in favor of privacy reform to protect you" in their political ads, while having done nothing in reality. It is BS.

Re:A step in the right direction (4, Interesting)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | about 2 months ago | (#47070351)

Exactly. It's time for term limits for Congress.

Re:A step in the right direction (2)

ilikenwf (1139495) | about 2 months ago | (#47070357)

And the Judiciaries.

Re:A step in the right direction (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070555)

Exactly. It's time for term limits for Congress.

Term limits for Congress would make the executive branch (NSA) stronger. It would also strengthen staff and lobbyists significantly. If you don't like your old Congressman, vote him out, but don't think about telling me I can't vote for mine. That's not democracy when you want to tell me I can't vote the way I want. Why don't you ask yourself what the real problem you are trying to solve instead of hating on Congressmen.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070861)

You can't vote for your minimum wage shelf-stacking friend, and while he's a minimum wgae helf stacker you never will be able to.

In fact, you've already been told who you can vote for.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070891)

And the problem is everyone else's Congressman, right?

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 months ago | (#47070873)

Exactly. It's time for term limits for Congress.

Congress members should get a single term of 2 years and then be then be hastily launched into the sun along with all of their assets.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47070915)

I disagree.
I am all for an age max though, say 60.

Re:A step in the right direction (4, Interesting)

Dylan Critchfield (2882653) | about 2 months ago | (#47070359)

As true as I know it is, I'm doing my best not to lose total faith in humanity. Let's face it, not even congressmen like having their shit ruffled through, right? I could be wrong, but it remains to be seen. We'll see how this plays out.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

ilikenwf (1139495) | about 2 months ago | (#47070367)

There's probably a footnote explicitly protecting government members from investigation.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070529)

Don't include the rest of us in your fight against corruption.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070667)

Yep. Even the bill's original cosponsor, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), voted against this bill because he claims the bill is gutted due to the pressure from the White House and both Republican and Democrat party leaders.

Re:A step in the right direction (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 months ago | (#47070885)

Not true! Not everything politicians do is about elections!

It's also to get everyone to forget about it sooner so the politicians can focus on catering to special interests. "The NSA spying? We took care of that. Now let me explain why we need to deregulate credit card companies."

Re:A step in the right direction (2)

flanders123 (871781) | about 2 months ago | (#47070949)

It is not a step in the right direction. It is window dressing. It is a dress on a pig. It is the a polishing of a turd. The fact that Americans will be OK with this is the EXACT problem. Yours this is the EXACT reaction that the politicians want. The smoke screen has worked. Again.

Obviously: (0)

toby (759) | about 2 months ago | (#47070319)

Now we need to spy on those 121 dissenters to find out what the fuck they were thinking.

Re:Obviously: (2)

ilikenwf (1139495) | about 2 months ago | (#47070353)

We need to fire everyone in Washington DC and reform the crap out of everything. Both sides are wrong here - why vote for a flawed by design bill? It only exists for political posturing for elections.

We need to remove the bureaucracy, scrap the tax law and start over, zero base budget every agency, and force everyone in DC to work for an amount that is equal to the mean wage of the nation, since they're supposedly volunteers. On top of that, Obamacare should apply to them and pensions should be removed for all of them, past present and future.

Re:Obviously: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070505)

Everyone in DC? Taxi drivers and retail employees included? Or just the five hundred or so assholes that the rest of the country is too irresponsible to replace?

Re:Obviously: (1)

ilikenwf (1139495) | about 2 months ago | (#47070513)

Hehe, this...as well as the bureaucrats. We have a lot of bureaus that don't actually do anything other than hire people and spend money, left over from times when they were actually needed. It's like half the daemons in ubuntu, actually.

Don't forget the lobbyists (4, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | about 2 months ago | (#47070617)

We need to fire everyone in Washington DC and reform the crap out of everything. Both sides are wrong here - why vote for a flawed by design bill? It only exists for political posturing for elections.

Remember, term limits and "voting out the bastards" doesn't really mean much if lobbying (aka Bribery) is still funding their replacements. We need to fire everyone, and then keep moneyed interests from simply installing newly-bought idiots.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 months ago | (#47070771)

Here is my fix for Campaign Finance.

1) Non-person entities cannot donate directly to any candidate or cause, but rather must fund their own "campaigns". If say ATT or Google want to help elect people, they can buy their own damn TV spots. "Google supports Harry Reid for senate".

2) Persons can only contribute directly to campaigns for whom they are eligible to vote. Outside influences and PACS can buy their own damn TV spots (NRA, MoveOn, Koch, etc) "NRA supports Mitch McConnell".

3) All advertising must present, who is the primary sponsor (PAC, Lobbying group, etc) with clear details on contributors. Groups wanting to keep their membership "secret" must display "Secret" prominently in their advertisement. "The ad paid for by Mothers Against Dumb Dads --- SECRET"

People have a natural distrust of "secret" organizations.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 months ago | (#47070897)

Here's a better fix:

Ban all campaign, ballot measure, etc. advertising entirely. Write a statement, put it on your webpage, and then shut the fuck up.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47071019)

Here's a better fix:

Ban all campaign, ballot measure, etc. advertising entirely. Write a statement, put it on your webpage, and then shut the fuck up.

What. The. Fuck.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re:Don't forget the lobbyists (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47070937)

4) Donated money can only go to the candidate

5) They can only advertise on the internet

6) Any inaccurate must be published immediately and retracted in public, by the candidate.

7) Only the candidate can buy ads for support. no 3rd parties.

Re:Obviously: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070361)

Now we need to spy on those 121 dissenters to find out what the fuck they were thinking.

I thought we were spying on everybody already? Why were these 121 people not spied upon? Are you incompetent? Do you WANT another 9/11 you unpatriotic clod?

Re:Obviously: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070609)

I guessing that a few of them like Rep. Justin Amash (R)(MI) voted against it in protest of the dilution of the bill's power to reign in the NSA's bulk collection surveillance. In fact, Amash was an original cosponsor who wrote [washingtonexaminer.com] this on his Facebook page, “This morning's bill maintains and codifies a large-scale, unconstitutional domestic spying program. It claims to end 'bulk collection' of Americans' data only in a very technical sense: The bill prohibits the government from, for example, ordering a telephone company to turn over all its call records every day.”

Re:Obviously: (4, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 months ago | (#47070893)

Some of them were thinking that the bill was so watered down that it actually authorizes spying, and weren't fooled into approving it.

And you were suckered into thinking that they were the bad guys. The establishment wins again.

Speak Truth to Power (5, Insightful)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 2 months ago | (#47070321)

last-minute efforts by intelligence community loyalists to weaken key language in the USA Freedom Act

Instead of the NewSpeak "intelligence community loyalists" how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (0)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 months ago | (#47070429)

how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.
The believe that this is what they have to do to protect "the People."

Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (2)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 2 months ago | (#47070503)

No matter whether that's true or false, in this instance the way the intelligence community has chosen to accomplish a goal runs directly counter to the interests of the people it is intended to protect, which is exactly what an enemy is.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47070951)

"goal runs directly counter to the interests of the people it is intended to protect, "
no it doesn't. Not at all.
we can argue the constitutionality of it, and yes it's actually complex. But being able to track someone down that makes a threats is in your best interested.

You may no want that, but that is a different thing.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 2 months ago | (#47070527)

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.

Ho ho. If it wasn't in bad faith, why has Keith Alexander been lying through his teeth all this time?

Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.

When you're treated as the enemy as the American people have been by the intelligence community, what else would you expect the reaction to be? Rainbows and unicorns?

Sorry, but doubling down on Total Information Awareness in secret after it had been shouted down publicly and repeatedly is a sign of a rogue agency out for its own interests.

--
BMO

Re:Speak Truth to Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070749)

If it wasn't in bad faith, why has Keith Alexander been lying through his teeth all this time?

Because it's intelligence work, not keyboard-jockey internet wankary?

FYI - We are tapping your internet connection and know all your porn habits and terrorist connections.

Love,
The NSA (No Such Agency)

Not gunna happen - spying has to be secret. Otherwise you just have your cock out while you sit their with a microphone while everyone laughs at you.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070909)

So you're fine with the constant breaches of your rights. Almost everyone in America will be happy for you. You do what you like, it's not their problem, it's not their concern.

What is their problem, and their concern, is that numb-nuts fuckwits such as yourself are giving the thumbs up for the constant breaches of the rights of everyone else.

Let me repeat this, so I can be sure you understand:

You are free to do whatever you want with your own rights. You can submit daily reports to the FBI, CIA, and NSA about what you do. Nobody gives a fuck

By supporting the intrusion into the lives of others, you are effectively supporting the oppression of others.

It's a shame we don't have time machines, because we could send you to Moscow in the 50s, with a note taped to your forehead reading "Enemy of the People" so you could be disappeared to a gulag.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (2)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 2 months ago | (#47070827)

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.

None of the other totalitarians in history were either. That's completely irrelevant.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070849)

how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.
The believe that this is what they have to do to protect "the People."

Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.

Except that their mandate is actually to protect the United Stats and the Constitution, not juts "the people".

A doctor who wants to put you in an induced coma to protect your liver from your alcohol habit isn't acting in "good faith" and neither is an intelligence agency that breaks the law in order to catch criminals.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 months ago | (#47070943)

how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.

Prove it! To put it in simple terms: If you take the word of a known liar on good faith, you are an idiot.

Sure, I would agree that "some" of the people probably believe that they are doing a "good job", but that "job" has been defined by corrupt people who are proven to have spoken untrue statements under oath. They don't care about honesty, they care either about themselves and their ilk or an agenda which is being hidden from the Citizens of this Counrty.

Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.

Absolute rubbish! If you don't have the truth in what they are doing, then you don't have the truth in goal. I have no idea why people like you claim "I don't know" + "Immoral and/or illegal actions" + "Known Liars" == "Good for the USA". Making such a claim is completely absurd.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 2 months ago | (#47070967)

The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.
The believe that this is what they have to do to protect "the People."

Even if that were true, you could say that about most of the evil tyrants throughout history. It doesn't mean what they're doing is actually what's best for the people. They believe it is because they believe that the more power they have, the more they can make things go their way, and that their way is the right way. Their actions are nothing more noble than a power grab.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (1)

vettemph (540399) | about 2 months ago | (#47070447)

One man's tax dollar is another man's profit.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070463)

last-minute efforts by intelligence community loyalists to weaken key language in the USA Freedom Act

Instead of the NewSpeak "intelligence community loyalists" how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.

Do "enemies of the people" include everyone who's opinion you disagree with? Maybe you're an "enemy of the people".

Re:Speak Truth to Power (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 2 months ago | (#47070911)

It includes those who try to subvert the principles this country is supposed to stand for, those who violate the highest law of the land, and those who claim to want us to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and yet support policies and take actions that take us in the exact opposite direction.

They're not merely enemies of the people; they're enemies of the very concept of freedom.

Re:Speak Truth to Power (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 2 months ago | (#47070735)

"Newspeak" is a method of crippling public discourse and individual thought through the elimination of nuanced descriptive terms. This is NOT an example of it.

who cares? (2, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 months ago | (#47070329)

Another case of the fox guarding the hen house.

Wishful Number (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070343)

It would have been cooler to have 101 more members of Congress vote for reform. 404: NSA not found,

Obama! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070349)

Yeah boy! Hope and Change!
 
While he's fucking you up the ass and a hand in your pocket...

Re:Obama! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070981)

Just remember that the Republicans were levelling another country with your taxes, and when you couldn't afford to keep doing that and running social services, they just cut the social services.

Gifting money to the rich isn't socialism, though: they worked hard for the money they're being given. Influencing social policy for your own personal gain isn't easy...

Deeper Underground (2)

WarJolt (990309) | about 2 months ago | (#47070365)

My theory is that any legislation will just put the covert back into intelligence gathering.

Re:Deeper Underground (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 months ago | (#47070385)

Back overseas.

The good old days when the English/Australians spied on the Americans and vice versa.

This goes back to WWII. They started collecting metadata under Ma Bell.

Distraction (5, Insightful)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 2 months ago | (#47070373)

Everybody wins here, a bunch of people get to say they did something in the fight against the NSA. The Executive branch and those in the house who support invasive domestic spying get to keep the majority of their surveillance programs, and most importantly there isn't much more meaningful oversight so who actually knows if the NSA is following the rules. The Executive still gets to hide themselves behind national security letters, "state secrets", and special secret courts.

However I do not feel like this caused any meaningful change. Hopefully the nation remains outraged at the NSA and this is just the first step in fixing our domestic spying programs, but I feel like we get a few meaningless bills passed and then this issue goes away until the next Snowden.

Re:Distraction (1)

easyTree (1042254) | about 2 months ago | (#47070553)

Clearly we need an NSA2 to covertly spy on the NSA to see if they're following the rules.

Re:Distraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070815)

The Executive still gets to hide themselves behind national security letters, "state secrets", and special secret courts.

That sort of disgruntled talk sounds like treason against His Majesty.

To the Star Chamber with you.

Re:Distraction (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 2 months ago | (#47071001)

Everybody wins here

The fact that your "everyone" doesn't include the citizenry is very indicative of the root of the problem. The people don't matter, only the politicians who are in power matter. These politicians are like teenagers: They have conveniently forgotten the first 3 words of the constitution that they promised to uphold.

That's (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070395)

Traitor Snowden to you. Fugitive Snowden may also be used. We are all worse of for his treachery. His name will go down in hisotry like Stalin, Hilter, Bush/CHeney, and now, Snowden.

Re:That's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47071037)

How are you worse for his "treachery," given that you now know you're being constantly surveilled in breach of the rights and laws of the nation? Doesn't that make you better off, given that you can now act against these traitors to your nation?

How often does this need pointed out, before the astroturfers give up and fuck off?

It's hard to vote out the Gestapo... (4, Insightful)

Grog6 (85859) | about 2 months ago | (#47070403)

They know everything about you; all it takes is a "gentle reminder" and this bill is turned into a termite-eaten stack of drivel.

I didn't expect any different, It just means they had enough on enough people to effectively gut it before it was passed. We really knew that already...

If it really meant anything, this bill would have contained a passage giving Snowden immunity, as long as he testifies against everyone else inside the Govt that violated the constitution with respect to their illegal activities.

"It's not illegal when the President does it!" didn't work for Nixon, it should not have worked for Bush or Obama. Everyone should be in Jail, at this point, lol.

WTF has our country become?
.

Re:It's hard to vote out the Gestapo... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 months ago | (#47070913)

If it really meant anything, this bill would have contained a passage giving Snowden immunity, as long as he testifies against everyone else inside the Govt that violated the constitution with respect to their illegal activities.

I think there's a bit of false dichotomy there.

They know everything about you; all it takes is a "gentle reminder" and this bill is turned into a termite-eaten stack of drivel. I didn't expect any different, It just means they had enough on enough people to effectively gut it before it was passed. We really knew that already...

The thing with cynicism in politics is that you get zero points for being right about how terrible things are or will be, and it just makes you feel even less like trying to change anything. So lets not say things like that out loud, please?

Re:It's hard to vote out the Gestapo... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47071005)

no one violated the constitution, THAT'S the problem.

The bill sucks. Trust Amash on this. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070411)

Justin Amash voted against his own bill. In an article for "the Hill" (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/206929-house-votes-to-limit-nsa-spying) he is quoted as saying:

“This morning's bill maintains and codifies a large-scale, unconstitutional domestic spying program,” he wrote in a post on Facebook.

Changes to the language, for instance, would allow the government to obtain data about a broad section of phone records such as "area code 616" or "phone calls made east of the Mississippi."

“The bill green-lights the government's massive data collection activities that sweep up Americans' records in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” he added.

Seems that what was actually passed should actually be called the "Placate the Plebs while Continuing to Screw Them Act of 2014"

Worse than nothing. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070437)

The bill basically says that metadata and data should not get collected without a warrant except when one thinks one has a reason. What kind of reason would count as an exception is not actually specified.

So while the previous practice was clearly illegal, this bill makes everything legal since it only applies the "but only if you think this a good idea" metric and clearly everybody already thought it was a good idea to spy on everyone without warrant.

Re:Worse than nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070881)

Can you point to the law it broke (and don't bother saying "unconstitutional", they tiptoed close to the line but the general opinion is that they didn't cross it).

Re:Worse than nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47071023)

Including the foreign surveilance, I can list up a long list of human rights..

But since you allow torture anyway, why care about human rights?

and for those outside the USA... (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | about 2 months ago | (#47070539)

... the NSA has just freed up a bunch of server capacity for spying on _you_.

Names! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070571)

Who watered it down? Let's get their names out in the open! Hopefully it's still a matter of public record as to who actually formulates our laws.

121 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47070611)

Let's tap the phones of the 121 no-votes and see what those guys are up to.

Re:121 (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 2 months ago | (#47070687)

Stuff like trying to protect your freedom you idiot!

Freedom? USA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47071003)

USA Freedom Act. Even the name is a fucking joke.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>