EFF Dismayed by House's Gutted USA Freedom Act

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gutted-usa-freedom-act

by spenvo • 12 years ago

158 37 12 years ago

PBS Frontline is running a ~3 hour documentary, released in two parts, the second installment was released today, of the entire post 9/11 NSA surveillance episode, up to and including the Snowden leaks @ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-sec...

Well worth a watch.

samstave• 12 years ago

So while this is fantastic - if you pay attention to the first part of it - there is still a heavy dose of propaganda tied to the perception of how this all came about - as if it was some surprise emergent behavior that is outside anyone's expectation that this would have occurred.

As opposed to the reality that the whole thing is decades in the making and we can track exactly who built this thing. (Hint: who build PNAC?)

tunap• 12 years ago

Joe knows! Allow me to just... drop this here....

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

dredmorbius• 12 years ago

Terry Gross's interview last week with two of the subjects of the FrontLine series, Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe was also excellent:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/frontline-doc-explores-how-sept-11...

dfc3• 12 years ago

Do you think it is well worth a watch for people who have been following the issue? I thought it was a nice introduction but there was hardly anything shocking or new in the show.

Was it entertaining? I guess, but professional documentaries that reinforce your world view are usually somewhat entertaining. Was it informative for someone that has read the coverage in the Guardian/FirstLook/NYT/WaPo? In all honesty, no.

us0r• 12 years ago

Part two was kind of disappointing.

They went after Google, glossed over Facebook and did not even mention Microsoft whom is the only one so far (outside of the telcos) "partnering" with them.

droopybuns2• 12 years ago

Major funding for FRONTLINE’s broadcast season is provided by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

I do not believe that those grants are completely without perks for the big doners.

That said- I don't think MS is the most interesting story here. Google has earned their reputation with Eric Schmidt's cavilier attitude and hypocrisy.

ipsin• 12 years ago

It would be interesting to trace the true lineage of this (or any) legislative edit.

It has a smell if an outside source, as though our laws are not written by our lawmakers.

ganeumann• 12 years ago

An article on The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/206686-privacy-advocate...) says that the change was made at the behest of the Obama administration:

"[A]fter moving through the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, where it saw some changes but retained the support of privacy advocates, last minute negotiations between House leadership and the Obama administration have left the bill with weakened language when it comes to banning mass surveillance, advocates say."

Disappointing on many levels.

pekk3• 12 years ago

Because we all know how the Tea Party-heavy House has done whatever Obama wanted

mike_herrera• 12 years ago

I would assume that by using "Obama administration" in this context it was meant to be purposefully vague. The Executive Branch is massive. This could be anyone from the Pentagon, CIA, DHS, to many others who just happen to eventually report to the President. Many of these organizations have the motivation to maintain their current legal powers.

According to the EFF (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gu...):

"Many members of Congress, the President's own review group on NSA activities, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board all agree that the use of Section 215 to collect Americans' calling records must stop."

It could be possible that the President overruled his own policy review group. But I find it unlikely given his propensity for consensus.

misiti3780• 12 years ago

Wouldnt be great if bills were edited in github or something analogous so you could see who committed the gutting? Oh well, back to my ipython notebook.

alttab• 12 years ago

Sorry, git blame might be able to hold people accountable for their decisions. This is the reason it would take revolution or something equally disruptive to introduce it.

pekk3• 12 years ago

I'm always surprised at how many people naively suppose that bloodshed will automatically generate political reform.

hippee-lee• 12 years ago

More than interesting. It would be a way to account what people say and what they do.

karmelapple• 12 years ago

What is the most serious attempt out there of trying this?

I would want a law saying all bills must be put through a system that can be audited to see precisely who makes the changes.

And if it allows pull requests like GitHub, anyone could fork a bill, make a change, and people could comment on the best proposed recordings.

I think this could honestly get people more involved in politics in a productive way, rather than watching talking heads spout reactionary crystal ball gazing on the 24 hour news networks.

outside1234• 12 years ago

Which is why there isn't such a thing. :)

jqm• 12 years ago

I nominate this idea of the month. Github for all bills.

vezzy-fnord• 12 years ago

You're hardly the first to think this up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_governance

Of course, this would require politicians to have some basic technical literacy. Though I wouldn't imagine using a VCS to be difficult, even for an unacquainted person.

bennyg• 12 years ago

That's why GUIs and potentially always watching directories would be perfect for them.

rodgerd2• 12 years ago

It doesn't really require much of the individual MP or Congresspersion, just their office.

dfc3• 12 years ago

If you want to see the differences between the version introduced in October of 2013 and the most recent amended version see here:

https://gist.github.com/dfc/1819eace21dc47358f38/revisions

Sadly I have never had much luck/success with the bill changes interface on opencongress.org.

justinph• 12 years ago

With a name like the USA FREEDOM Act, how could you go wrong?

dfc3• 12 years ago

It is always amusing to see how they come up with the short titles:

USA FREEDOM Act: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring Act

rodgerd2• 12 years ago

Much as a Democratic Peoples' Republic is likely to be none of the 3.

suprgeek• 12 years ago

By most reports this bill was watered down on the express meddling of the White house.

This is very unfortunate in that Senator Obama had clearly promised in his pre-election speeches to explicitly push for what this bill was (somewhat) trying to do. Watch this point-by-point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vixVPE4LBAU#!

Now that he is in a position to do so, President Obama is fighting tooth-and-nail to make this a toothless(!) bill.

Why?

alexeisadeski32• 12 years ago

Why? Because... he's a politician?

chc2• 12 years ago

So was everyone else involved with the bill. That explanation is insufficient.

dan_bk• 12 years ago

If such watered down "solutions" are what we get for just about the most arcane form of surveillance (phone calls), then what are the "solutions" for electronic surveillance (where the real surveillance happens) going to look like?

EFF Dismayed by House's Gutted USA Freedom Act

Related Stories