Block NSA funding for collecting the call records of all Americans

by sinak • 13 years ago

482 203 13 years ago

This is something real, tangible, and valuable that we can all actually do. All of this month I have felt powerless. This is something within everyone's power to do, and it can definitely help start the ball rolling back the way it came.

It is pretty unfortunate that there is such a short window of time in which this information can be disseminated. I can imagine if there were a bit more time, this could really spread over the whole Web, as the SOPA outroar did. Anyway, we have to do the best we can, with the time we have.

icantthinkofone• 13 years ago

Yeah! That'll work! Just like the Occupy movement.

Will there be beer?

toyg2• 13 years ago

I hope you'll be downvoted to hell.

HN should be about constructive criticism. We're all intelligent people, we can all tear down anything we put our mind at, but that doesn't mean that we should, or we wouldn't leave our house every day.

I know I'm a cynic and it's a bad habit I'm trying to change, maybe you should try too.

keithpeter2• 13 years ago

Well now, I live in the UK.

We don't have a written constitution, so the Powers That Be don't have to hack the legal system in quite the same way as as they do in the US (secret courts, secret injunctions, requirements for industry leaders to deny activity &c).

However, we have absolutely no oversight and no way to gain oversight of the agencies that purport to be acting for our protection. It is difficult even to find out how much we are paying for these agencies. As our Prime Minister has recently demonstrated, our elective representatives have very little understanding of how the Internet actually works. There is a cross party consensus that the 'legal framework' is adequate. Maybe it is, but we don't know, and have no way of knowing.

So I'd suggest taking what action you can within your system, because at least you have some avenues for change.

cyphax• 13 years ago

I still feel powerless, but of course, that's because I'm not a US citizen (though my children are, but they cannot yet speak), while my communications are also spied on by the NSA.

I hope you'll be able to make a difference. Good luck on this.

bargl• 13 years ago

Actually you aren't powerless. You phone still works and you can call a senator. I don't know the legal ramifications of neglecting to mention that you aren't a member of the voting citizenry.

mpyne12• 13 years ago

It sounds so surreal that I'm having to type this out this way, but: If you're on U.S. soil the 4th Amendment applies to you, no matter what your citizenship is.

oleganza8• 13 years ago

I disagree, it is not something real or tangible. I'm all for defunding NSA, but it's not like a regular business which you can boycott by not giving them money. You have to go and ask permission from the government to not give the money (which they previously extracted from you by force for the "good of society") to some of the government agencies. It's pretty much like going to NSA itself and ask them to defund themselves. Voting is just a suggestion, it's not binding. Presidential candidates promise stuff, get votes and then are not obliged to deliver what was promised. It works the same way in every country today.

Real and tangible way to defund NSA is this:

1. Withhold your taxes.

2. Protect yourself against the police and the military who will try to extract them by force (possibly by having crowdfunded guards).

3. Switch from using US Dollar as most of the money government generates comes from inflation (gov sells "bonds" that it will never repay in exchange for new money). Since all national currencies are inflationary and controlled by similar institutions all over the world, only Bitcoin is a good alternative. Or gold, if we can protect the vaults properly and build trust in a company that keeps it (but history shows it doesn't work).

4. Pay only what you think is fair and where you think it's fair. E.g. if you like social security, pay there directly as much as you want.

Only voluntary payments will guarantee that people who you don't like get as much money as someone is willing to give them explicitly and voluntarily. You should not ask for permission to not participate in what you don't approve.

falk6• 13 years ago

I found this Wikipedia article on tax resistance to be full of interesting information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance

MisterWebz• 13 years ago

Why wouldn't a boycott work? Instead of signing petitions that won't change a thing, try something that actually requires some real effort and look for alternatives to the current tech giants. For starters, stop using Facebook (gasp).

When they realize that cooperating with the NSA will severely damage their reputation, they'll think twice before handing over user data this easily. Not to mention that if they realize their users are migrating, they might start lobbying against the NSA.

chernevik2• 13 years ago

If you make this a choice between the surveillance super state and anarchy, you'll get the super state. Everyone knows we need some kind of government.

It's definitely hard to imagine the NSA being defunded, but that is rooted in a culture that is less concerned with government compliance with law and more with "reasonable" outcomes. The inability to control institutions, and the establishment of those institutions as powers in their own right, is the logical consequence.

king_jester• 13 years ago

1. Withhold your taxes.
2. Protect yourself against the police and the military who will try to extract them by force (possibly by having crowdfunded guards).
3. Switch from using US Dollar as most of the money government generates comes from inflation (gov sells "bonds" that it will never repay in exchange for new money). Since all national currencies are inflationary and controlled by similar institutions all over the world, only Bitcoin is a good alternative. Or gold, if we can protect the vaults properly and build trust in a company that keeps it (but history shows it doesn't work).
4. Pay only what you think is fair and where you think it's fair. E.g. if you like social security, pay there directly as much as you want.

So the solution of breaking free from the NSA and problems of US gov't is to isolate yourself and recreate the exact same systems in miniature?

ceejayoz• 13 years ago

Protect yourself against the police and the military who will try to extract them by force (possibly by having crowdfunded guards).

Yeah, that's not going to happen. "Protect yourself" in this case translates to "ensure your rapid death in a SWAT assault". Security guards aren't going to fight a warrant for your arrest, and mercenaries will just die in the assault.

darkarmani• 13 years ago

most of the money government generates comes from inflation

I don't believe this. And if it is true then witholding your taxes won't help. The people losing money to inflation would probably stop buying bonds if inflation ate into their returns.

rdl2• 13 years ago

The principled/safe way to withhold your taxes is to just not generate much income.

clicks• 13 years ago

Looks good, is to the point, very convenient -- tells you what to say, who to say it to.

Wonderful job guys. I think this is going to be a pretty effective grassroots campaign.

Yuioup2• 13 years ago

I have a question.

It's pretty much a safe bet that the NSA runs Open Source Software. You can't do anything on the internet these days without using FLOSS.

I'm not an expert in software licenses but can't GNU, Linus, Mozilla and all other Open Source contributers revoke the NSA's license to use their software?

Surely Open Source licenses, just like any other license, can be revoked?

rquirk• 13 years ago

Not likely to happen - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

davidw• 13 years ago

It's not open source if you specify who can and cannot use it. There was some bit of software years ago that had a clause like "no neonazis may use this software", and it got DQ'ed from Debian because that made it not free software.

It's a bit like free speech: you really want to be very, very careful about limiting what people can say.

johnsoft• 13 years ago

That reminds me of this blog post – http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions

random422• 13 years ago

They they can't. Most (all?) of the opensource licenses do not have the "revokable clause" with them.

Yuioup2• 13 years ago

Ok. What happens if GNU decides to Fork the GPL v3 and call it "GPLv3+NSA Exception" and then relicense all their code to this new forked license?

A clause in this forked license is that the NSA can't use it.

davidjgraph2• 13 years ago

No, you can't revoke their license to use the software they already have, only them breaching the license would lose them the right to use it.

You could change the licensing so that they are not allowed to use future versions, but then that's no longer open source software. The open source definition[0] says:

"5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."

The last issue you get with this idea is whether the NSA is the most unethical user of these pieces of software, I seriously doubt that is the case. Then you need to introduce clauses to ban everyone else who you feel doesn't behave in the manner you'd like. That'll be fun.

[0] http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

gpcz• 13 years ago

Clause 6 of the Open Source Definition ( http://opensource.org/osd-annotated ) states that open source software licenses cannot discriminate against fields of endeavor. That is, you can't state in your license that an abortion clinic / anti-abortion activists can't use the software and still call it open source.

declan• 13 years ago

Right. Because "open source" no longer fits, you'd need a new name for software released under the anti-surveillance license. "Freedom Software" instead of "Free Software" has a nice ring to it. :)

raverbashing• 13 years ago

Really, this is not the way to go

And besides, how would you audit it?!

jonknee• 13 years ago

They threw out the 4th amendment without notifying the public, do you really think any software license is going to make a difference?

snitko9• 13 years ago

I think this is fighting the symptom rather than the cause. NSA is a symptom of a much larger problem, which is taxes. If you didn't have them, you wouldn't have to demand those things in the first place, because all the money you'd give would be given voluntarily and to organizations that you choose and think are important.

unimpressive4• 13 years ago

which is taxes

Let's start with the possible, shall we?

snitko9• 13 years ago

I agree. Let's use Bitcoin. It's possible right here today and you don't give anyone a cut.

czr802• 13 years ago

So, let me get this straight: we abolish taxes, eliminate governments, and then ... paradise?

snitko9• 13 years ago

It depends on how you define paradise. If paradise is the same as now, but without massively killing population of foreign countries with drones, keeping people in prison without trial and massively spying on your own people, then yes, it's going to be paradise.

If your question is whether we can still have a civilized, stable and prosperous society, ask yourself would the demand for the good things that are currently provided by the government go? Would people still need roads and fire protection and security?

eksith• 13 years ago

Meanwhile, back on Earth...

Taxes are the means of transferring worth to folks like firefighters, police officers, construction works etc... You know, the folks who hold up infrastructure and need to eat food and stuff. And I can count on one hand the number of people I've met who would donate to these institutions in this economy.

Now if there's a way to reroute existing tax funds that used to go to rubbish into things that are really necessary, I'm all ears. And there may just be a way to work out something that enough heckling of public officials may... just may... get off the ground.

Step 1: Earmarks are verboten. I've lost count of how many times I've seen a bill pass congress with a whole heap of pork-barrel nonsense (subsidies to shady companies anyone?) because some senator has to do a kickback to the folks who paid for his/her election.

Step 2: Every law that is to be passed is read out loud from front page to end in congress by a designated reader from each party. They may take turns if they're tired, but no one is allowed to leave, have bathroom breaks, nap, chat or be otherwise distracted.

You actually get to bloody know WTF you're passing. Someone raises a hand and goes, "hey, that's stupid!" Everyone stops and discusses what it is that's stupid and the thing gets amended on the spot.

Step 3: No consecutive reelections... for anything. No exceptions! The chance that you won't be here the next term is a damn good way to ensure people remember you for the right reasons in your current term so you can come back the term after that to finish what you started. It also takes away the incentive to seek office as a career. No, you get to government to serve. Now pick up a broom, damn it!

...I'm sure someone else has some bright other ideas short of throwing out taxes, which functional societies will always have in some form until we throw out currency altogether.

snitko9• 13 years ago

You are correct that taxes are means to finance good things too. But ask yourself this: can things you agree with be financed without simultaneously financing things you disagree with?

Police officers, firefighters, teachers... Could it be that we don't really need any government to finance them? The demand is there. Private companies will be more than happy to fill it. All the government does is pretends that those things can't be done without it and then uses some of the money collected to finance things it wants, but you disagree with.

noarchy2• 13 years ago

Taxes are the means of transferring worth to folks like firefighters, police officers, construction works etc... You know, the folks who hold up infrastructure and need to eat food and stuff. And I can count on one hand the number of people I've met who would donate to these institutions in this economy.

Yet people give money to institutions every day, voluntarily. Not to mention, plenty of construction projects exist outside of government, as does security. Clearly some institutions are of value to us. If we thought we were getting real value out of our tax payments, the government would not need to use threats against us to collect it. We'd line right up to give our money away.

Now if there's a way to reroute existing tax funds that used to go to rubbish into things that are really necessary, I'm all ears. And there may just be a way to work out something that enough heckling of public officials may... just may... get off the ground.

And what, to you, are things that are "really necessary"? That's one of the things that grinds governments to a halt in democratic societies - the need to agree on how to spend other people's money. It is never pretty.

Ambitious ideas for change that have no chance of getting traction.

Every new layer of legislation that gets added in the name of "accountability" does little more than add paperwork, costs, and personnel to the payrolls. Then we complain yet more about government waste and inefficiency. It always sounds nice to talk about how to hold the crooks in power to task, but they're still the ones in charge of enacting the laws.

until we throw out currency altogether.

What was this "Earth" of which you spoke?

oleganza8• 13 years ago

Me and my friends will never stay in your way if you want to fund a firefighter or NSA, or local McDonalds. It's your choice, your property. Even if we don't like your lifestyle or disagree with your ideas. Will you give me the same respect to disagree with you and act upon my beliefs? Since I don't force you to pay for what I think is good, will you please allow me not to participate in things I don't approve of? If yes, then you should be against taxation. If no, will you employ violent action against me if I disagree with you and try to peacefully avoid certain things you like?

brown9-23• 13 years ago

I think this is a misstatement. Taxes are not the means of transferring worth to those individual people, taxes are the means of paying for that very infrastructure.

grey-area• 13 years ago

It's quite possible to not agree with the NSA or their interpretation of their mission and still believe in representative government.

kub• 13 years ago

Actually, the REAL problem is the ability of law enforcement to enforce court sentences.

Without that ability, taxes would be effectively eliminated, since you could just avoid paying them without ill effects.

Also most of the public enemies who currently prosper thanks to the protection of the corrupt legal system (patent trolls, monopolists, politicians, financial fraudsters, etc.) would be quickly eliminated by a bullet to the head from the first passerby.

miga2• 13 years ago

Ask liberal, and one will say that world is much worse with taxes and govt intervention in the economy.

Other people may be tempted to talk about NSA as issue of civil liberties and govt supervision rather than economy though. Why not to fund EFF and civil liberties group instead?

rb2e2• 13 years ago

The NSA is the heart of the intelligence gathering apparatus of the US Military Industrial Complex. Like it or not, this bill will pass either tomorrow or another day, tacked on to another bill. It is strategic to the military and the country.

There is no way in hell, this bill will not pass. You can scream, occupy the streets, protest, do whatever but it will not change a thing. It will go through.

The US military Industrial Complex is vast. It lobby’s hard. To vote against it is to be called “un-American”- you know its BS but the talking heads will say it. Its powerful but that isn’t the point of this post.

Truthfully, our governments have been spying on us for a long time. My country, the UK was reading the mail and telegrams long before the US. Then it was listening and recording phone calls. This is just a step up. As technology increased capabilities, the net has grown wider. From ECHELON to this.

Civil liberties does not mean anything to them as the mindset has stayed the same no matter how much you may scream or complain, realistically it will not change a thing because at the end of the day, the country will have enemies and it needs an intelligence gathering capability. It won’t give a damn about our rights as it tries to secure itself.

infinity02• 13 years ago

Your post accomplishes nothing except to persuade people to give up the fight for civil liberties. You propose no solution or do you give any additional insight into developing a solution.

Regardless of your actual intentions, you might as well be performing psychological propaganda. It's not helpful.

rb2e2• 13 years ago

No offence is taken. I've been reading and studying Intelligence/espionage for a long time. Not the fancy James Bond stuff, just the boring average, mundane stuff of the past 100 years.

I offer no solution because quite frankly, there isn't one. Unless you want to shut down the US military's and civilian intelligence gathering capabilities, it's not going to happen. There will always be reading your mail and listening in to your phonecalls. It is not going to stop.

I am not for this, I love my privacy but I am simply pointing out what will happen, regardless of any action taken.

ksrm• 13 years ago

It's accurate though, isn't it.

alan_cx• 13 years ago

Just a thought:

If people give up, the situation should get worse, and then people will act. It strikes me that we are not at enough of a tipping point yet. Giving up will get us to that tipping point quicker. People seem to tolerate a lot, until it gets excessive, well ,has an effect in their day to day lives. Right now, while what is happening is bad news, it doesn't touch most people's lives in a significant way, or a way they care about. Let the government run rampant, and we'll get to a tipping point quicker, then the majority will demand change.

Also, the government sees some decent, so it will slightly change things to bring the heat down a degree or two, but not fundamentally change anything at all. So it plays a game of whack a mole to keep the over all heat manageable, and this can go on for decades. All the time people are just tinkering at the edges keeping various groups vaguely happy. So no one really pushed for fundamental change.

So, why not just stand back and let the government hang it's self?

Yes, people will suffer, but world history tells us that nothing substantial changes with out some suffering.

Like I said, just a thought.

johnpowell2• 13 years ago

We elected Bush in 2004 when he had Tom Ridge upping the terror alert every week before the election. It never seemed to go down. But it always managed to go up to red every week.

I think we have hit the point that you can't really roll anything back. If you do and 9/11 v.2.0 happens you are politically screwed. And, unfortunately, it is all about the next election and soccer moms.

falk6• 13 years ago

"We elected Bush in 2004 when he had Tom Ridge upping the terror alert every week before the election."

You hit the nail right on the head. The problem in America isn't the politicians, it's the people.

Ackley2• 13 years ago

If Obama would do what he promised he would do, we would be in a better situation right now (about the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, etc..)

sinak• 13 years ago

Just a quick note to add that this was built over the course of 5 hours by four developers as part of http://taskforce.is, which was pretty much assembled here on Hacker News.

Please take a few minutes to call. It's amazing how low conversion rates are on calling campaigns like this one - a factor of 100 lower than email asks - but this is really critical. We only have one day to make this happen.

If you're interested in helping with campaigns like this in the future, you can sign up here: http://sina.is/rritf.html

A big thanks to Thomas Davis, Jens Nockert, and Beau Gunderson for building the site.

andyakb2• 13 years ago

I would strongly recommend including an auto email form. Maybe not as powerful as a phone calll, but conversions will be much higher

jlgaddis• 13 years ago

"Form e-mails" to representatives are pretty much completely ignored, as I understand it. Does it really matter if "x" percent converted if it has zero effect anyway?

triplepoint217• 13 years ago

I just called.

A feature that would be really nice: A way for me to give them my email address and zip code and then get an email when vote results are posted with how my Representative voted.

Hario• 13 years ago

That's a really good idea.

MorningInfidel• 13 years ago

Best of luck and god speed with this initiative. Were I a US citizen, I would be calling my representative.

sebkomianos• 13 years ago

Do we really believe that "a vote" can change such things? Do we really believe that we can avoid such situations (= non-transparent governments) within the current system?

I mean, when did you actually vote FOR the NSA funding in the first place so that you can now believe that you can defund it by voting against?

Dr_chaos• 13 years ago

LOL Fools

You know that the CIA run most of the drugs in and out of the great US. You know that they have massive surplus cash? Like so big they don't really know what to do with it

These 'government' bodies can and will exist without government. This is how they fund most if not all their black ops, that way nothing needs to be on the books.

if we stopped public money, I doubt it would even make a dent

falk6• 13 years ago

This may sound farfetched, but it's not. If you're interested in learning more about the CIA and drugs, I recommend the following:

- The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade by Alfred W. McCoy [1]

- Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press by Alexander Cockburn [2]

- Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond by Martin A. Lee [3]

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global/...

[2] http://www.amazon.com/Whiteout-The-CIA-Drugs-Press/dp/185984...

[3] http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Dreams-Complete-History-Sixties/d...

grabhive2• 13 years ago

I'm glad to see someone else pointing this out. I did so myself here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6089979

I want so suggest however, that you follow my lead in taking a sternly honest but less antagonistic approach to the topic. This reality implies a complete breakdown of democracy, which is terrifying. And while it may be true, we won't get far calling each other "fools", even if the effort is impotent.

Still, let me reiterate that I'm very glad you said it.

vaadu• 13 years ago

"The bill gives taxpayer money to fund defense programs, including NSA surveillance."

Why does it take money to defund an operation? Doesn't "defund" mean to not allocate money for.

Obama says he will veto. So what? If no money is allocated for said programs where is the budget for them coming from?

These NSA programs are only the tip of the iceberg of intrusions. <a href="The http://www.govexec.com/technology/2013/04/consumer-bureau-de... Credit Bureau</a> collects all financial data on US citizens and obamacare will be collecting and sharing everything medical with numerous federal agencies.

mtgx• 13 years ago

In theory it sounds nice, but how many black ops and secret budgets already exist? "Defunding the NSA", will just mean its "official" budget will be cut, and under everyone's noses, they will keep being funded through secret budgets.

I'm not saying it shouldn't happen - eventually - but first the priority should be to repeal the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, and end the secret FISA Court, or at least overhaul it in such a way that it's public, judges get elected in a much more democratic way than simply having one person naming them, as it is right now, and allow adversarial hearings, and for people to be able to use FOIA against this sort of spying.

If it's done on an American citizen (under a proper warrant - and not en masse), then that citizen should be able to request a FOIA for it, and get an almost completely unredacted document. If there's an investigation done on him currently, then at most he can get a few months delay, to a year. After that everyone should be able to use FOIA to get these documents.

dfc2• 13 years ago

Didn't congress say no to funding the stealth MH-60 SOF variant and later see tail rotor of a stealth MH-60 SOF variant in someone's backyard in Abbottabad?

mpyne12• 13 years ago

I think you're thinking of the Comanche helo. There's absolutely zero chance IMHO that Congress actually went out of their way to de-fund a fancy SOF toy.

dfc2• 13 years ago

I am almost positive it was the MH60. If my memory is correct: Congress did not defund it, they just did not authorize the funds to go forward with the plans to build a stealth MH60 SOF. Upon hearing the news the CIA said fuck it we have some black budget money we will pay for it. The next time congress heard about the program was news reports about a tail rotor from a stealth chopper in some guys yard in Abbottabad.

DanielBMarkham2• 13 years ago

No, no, a thousand times no. Hey, I'm the biggest fan of anonymity and privacy you can find. This is not an answer. It's an emotional over-reaction.

Countries need intelligence agencies -- they are the best way NOT to fight future wars. SIGINT is a useful function when used against foreign leaders. It's just a terrible idea when used against the population as a whole. Separate the parts that work and are useful from the parts that are destroying the country. Just don't lump it all together.

Unilaterally disarming is not a way forward. The only thing you accomplish by doing that is allowing dozens of other countries to spy on you without your knowledge. How is that a solution? These movements are in real danger of becoming "useful idiots" for others who wish us harm [1]

The only solution here is parity, i.e., whatever blanket surveillance is going on by corporations and the government regarding every citizen should be available to all citizens. This policy would naturally severely limit these kinds of operations without asking us to make broad decisions about delicate matters.

If you insist on defunding something, de-fund and kill the TSA. Then eliminate DHS and have the work go back to the separate agencies. But don't take a flamethrower to something which has a useful, important purpose because the politicians changed their mission to something terrible.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

andyakb2• 13 years ago

Read the website. Despite the name, it is not about defunding the entire nsa, but instead about removing the authorization and funding for blanket data collection

DanielBMarkham2• 13 years ago

You understand that my argument was not against all blanket data collection by the NSA, right? In many cases it might still work. That's the entire point: this issue does not reduce to simple answers, only shared values that can then discuss depending on the particular situation.

Address-to-address SIGiNT, two hops out, with only the address and time? I might could get behind that -- as long as I had that data also.

This discussion is not about surveillance. We are going to have that anyway. All this does is give it to every other country but us. This discussion is about priviledge -- who gets access to what?

Apologies for reaction to the link bait title, but that doesn't change the point I'm making.

coldcode• 13 years ago

The best way to rein in the NSA is make it difficult or impossible for it to find and hire employees and contractors. Without people it cannot function.

sauravt• 13 years ago

I was shocked for a while, since I read it as defendthensa.

spaznode2• 13 years ago

Makes sense hn would too vote such a stupid idea. If it didn't exist already something like it would have to be created.

Zigurd• 13 years ago

The Soviet Union went out of business in 1991. Why do we still have a mechanism that was built to target a closed totalitarian system armed with 20 megaton hydrogen bombs? The NSA is out of date and out of place.

spaznode2• 13 years ago

=) This assumes you have correctly defined what"it" is and does? Or what current is? Current isn't on tv.

brown9-23• 13 years ago

Instead of voting to block funding for programs, why not repeal the laws that enable those programs in the first place? I don't understand this logic.

glesica• 13 years ago

Because that would be a concrete step that would actually change something and would be a clear signal as to how each representative stands on the issue of unlimited domestic surveillance.

mcherm2• 13 years ago

The laws do NOT enable the programs. The laws had specific clauses stating that they could not be used for this sort of widespread surveillance of innocent citizens. But the administration has an "interpretation" of the laws which apparently is at odds with the plain text of the law. I can't say HOW they came by this interpretation, because the interpretation of the law is secret. (Yeah... really.)

So maybe the power of the purse will still be effective. We can hope.

brown9-23• 13 years ago

Or Congress could pass new laws that remove any ambiguity that allows for a different "interpretation" than what was intended.

perlpimp• 13 years ago

How can you repeal secret laws? There were report so secret laws and secret interpretations being used for 'justification' of unconstitutional activities.

culshaw• 13 years ago

Remove the funding and they will get it from elsewhere; that 50 years worth of data just became market research.

mcherm2• 13 years ago

Important point:

(This point was made clear in the actual page, but some of the comments suggest that not everyone understood it.)

The title to this posting (and the name of the website) are misleading. This is not a proposal to block funding for the NSA. And that's good, because such a proposal would have NO chance of passing, and would probably be a bad idea anyhow. Instead, this is a proposal to block funding for NSA collecting records on American citizens that are not being investigated. Which is a much more reasonable position.

sneak3• 13 years ago

Unfortunately, even if NSA stopped all domestic spying, the fact that they have programs like PRISM that silently turn any US company into a snitch for the US military means that the US internet industry has suffered an irreparable blow.

Obama getting on national TV and saying "we only target foreign entities" is the worst possible thing that could have happened. Even if all of this stuff works, the spying on foreigners via compelling US service providers to wiretap them is sufficient to end the internet industry in the USA as we know it.

LoganCale6• 13 years ago

It should be banning surveillance of anyone not under active investigation, not simply domestically.

mwsherman• 13 years ago

Also important: money is fungible. To block funding for a particular activity is to say that Congress appropriates money per activity. I don’t think that’s the case, but would happily be corrected.

So a law that states ‘here’s your money, but you’re not allowed to use it for x’ seems toothless in the extreme. It’s words on a page.

Keep in mind also that the NSA is close to lawless, so any room for interpretation will gut the intent. If it’s words on a page, it’s room for interpretation.

The only actual solution is to actually reduce the NSA’s budget, substantially. Is that in this bill?

dllthomas2• 13 years ago

I don't know. If we say "Here is your money; you can't use it for X" and the next whistleblower shows that they are nonetheless using it for X means they're misappropriating government funds, and people can go to jail for that.

mpyne12• 13 years ago

This is already thought about. You are hardly the first one to realize that funds can be spent on things other than what they were appropriated for. Look up the Anti-Deficiency Act.

meepmorp8• 13 years ago

Also important: money is fungible.

Yes and no. Congress can specifically prevent agencies from spending money on given activities with riders on budget bills. Evading such a ban would be a bigger deal than the current story, if only because congress would have explicitly stated tha such activities may not be conducted with congressionally provided funds. Assuming word of the program got out.

nfoz• 13 years ago

But we're still using that word "collect" which they have re-defined to be useless to stop (a normal concept of) collection: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames#collect

I'm not sure that this bill would change anything they're doing.

jlouis• 13 years ago

Just for the record, this will not help. There are a lot of foreigners who will still be under surveillance and I am pretty sure they will start seeking ways to pull their data away from US soil.

snsr• 13 years ago

More info - http://rules.house.gov/bill/hr-2397

Amendment #100

grabhive2• 13 years ago

Nearly everything that the NSA does is Top Secret, so can we claim to know anything about its activities? Why do we believe that we have the power to defund it, when we don't actually know where it gets its money, or how much it receives? Are posters here aware that the CIA has long been accused of being involved in the global drug trade, as a means of self-financing and leveraging power?

Despite the recent revelations having vindicated the world's tin-foil-hats, we still seem to collectively lack the stomach for darker conspiratorial notions. To be in step with reality, it may be important to build up a bit of tolerance. I'm not making any claims (because I just don't know), but I see absolutely no reason to assume that democratic process applies to these agencies. They may have gone rogue; they may have always been rogue. Their global network may be the actual, de-facto world government. Would it really surprise anyone at this point if a convincing leak exposed such notions? What would we do then?

Let's stop imagining that Law will take care of this problem so we can at least assume a proper direction for our efforts. Which is to say, let's dispense with some of our convenience and fashions and start writing software the right way -- the paranoid way.

To quote the eternal R. Buckminster Fuller:

"In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete."

donohoe• 13 years ago

I called all three of my listed representatives - the phone was answered almost immediately.

It took less than 5 minutes of my time. It may even take you less. It was quite pleasant.

Do it now!

jaxbot• 13 years ago

Agreed. The people you call know exactly what to expect and make it as quick and painless as possible. They're also very pleasant. I'm young and shy but this was probably the easiest social interaction I've ever done. Worth a shot, worth 30 seconds.

s_q_b5• 13 years ago

This won't work. Even if they defund the existing programs, the IC will just change the codenames and move them around between departments, as they did with TIA. The technology will live on.

The only way to really end these programs would be a full public debate followed by a statute that outright bans them. Anything less is a PR move.

LoganCale6• 13 years ago

Even if it ultimately doesn't work, don't you think it's worth trying rather than just going around saying it won't work? It's likely going to be a long, slow process to change this, and we need all the wins we can get, if only to prevent apathy and show others who are on the fence that there's enough public outrage over this that they should get involved too. If we do manage to get it passed and then there are new leaks a few years down the road that they did what you describe—move the programs around and keep running them—I think that would cause far greater outrage, because Congress explicitly banned them from continuing the programs and they ignored it.

s_q_b5• 13 years ago

No. I don't think it's worth trying. If this is your goal, I think there are far more effective ways to go about it.

1. First, you'll need a political organization that is single-mindedly focused on this one issue. You'll need donors, professional lobbyists, a PR team, and a massive grassroots organization. Think Anti-Saloon League meets Rules for Radicals.

2. Then you focus on one or two elections of prominent politicians. Find someone vulnerable in the Senate. Then find an opponent that will vote against these policies, and win. That will put your group on the map in Washington.

3. Have your newly elected champion propose legislation that addresses policy avenues for which there is already support in Washington. I would focus on two areas: fixing the FISA court, and forming an investigatory committee.

Making the FISA court more than a rubber stamp will accomplish many of your goals in the short term. In brief, a few reforms that could go a long way would be the addition of attorneys appointed to oppose the government in motions, fair appointment process, and regularly publishing the findings of law of the court with the fact patterns redacted.

Forming an investigatory commission will accomplish your goals in the long term. A top to bottom review of the classified practices of the government, in both public and closed hearings, will bring the information up from the depths of the executive branch. Knowledge will breed more outrage, which will fuel both your political organization and grassroots efforts.

If you're successful, the result will look much like the Church Committee. Your ultimate goal should be to statutorily ban the programs, but you won't get there in one step, and certainly won't get close by cutting the funding to a few programs.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try, if this is your sincerely held belief. I'm simply saying that playing whack-a-mole with particular programs is a spectacularly ineffective way to pursue your goals.

abecedarius4• 13 years ago

In politics, partial victories can snowball. And vice versa: repeated loss teaches helplessness. The direct real effect of this would be small, but I'd expect it to be much more useful than a loss.

Added: If you read about Watergate, the scandal wasn't any one event or one reaction: it took over two years from the break-in to the resignation, and people weren't sitting still. Some of the important action was in Congress. (Admittedly it was a different country then.)

s_q_b5• 13 years ago

This isn't Watergate. There isn't widespread public outrage. If you want to change the policies, you'll need to generate or simulate that outrage first.

dsschnau• 13 years ago

Oh snap - my rep proposed this bill. Cool!

Ackley2• 13 years ago

Their secret budget will see an increase if this happens...

bjeanes• 13 years ago

Man, you should put a big "call with Twilio" button right on the page to dial straight out to the representatives then and there.

ndesaulniers• 13 years ago

Just called my representative! I spoke the receptionist, who was very nice. I told her repeatedly to support Representative Amash's amendment to HR-2397. She requested my full name, zip code, and email address. Happy to help, from Restore the Fourth San Francisco!

mnemonik• 13 years ago

When I called in the first time, I got a busy line. When I called in a second time, I was directed to Nancy Pelosi's voice mail.

Hopefully, this means we are flooding the lines!

miga2• 13 years ago

Not sure if this is good idea.

Their database may be worth too much on a commercial market, and what if they may be tempted to become self-funding.

Abundnce10• 13 years ago

I wish there was an email option instead of having to call my congressman.

Block NSA funding for collecting the call records of all Americans

Related Stories