Freedom Act: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-Collection, and Online Monitoring Act
The USA Freedom Act was meant to end the bulk collection of Americans' metadata, end the secret laws created by the FISA court, and introduce a "Special Advocate" to represent public and privacy matters. Other proposed changes included limits to programs like PRISM, which incidentally retains Americans' Internet data, and greater transparency by allowing companies such as Google and Facebook to disclose information about government demands for information.
Non-American here, is that not what you want? Am I misunderstanding something?
Actually, what we want is for the Patriot Act to just end and stay gone. The USA Freedom act does curtail just some of the activities we don't like, but it enables the rest to continue -and it manages to shift data collection from the NSA to the phone companies instead.
"We don't want you to steal all our cars and hide them in your garage!"
Actually it does nothing to curtail the spying. All it does is move the storage of the data onto the backs of the ISP's. The systems will still be connected and search-able. In an interview with democracynow Assange said he has informants that said they have another secrete interpretation of a different law that will allow them to continue the collection, even after the provisions expired on Sunday.
Exactly. If this was really stopping anything you would have Jeh standing in front of a camera lying to you like Dick cheney making a case for war. They would be yelling the sky is falling!!Won't someone please think of the children!!
Sad day when the wants of "We the People" are in conflict with the government. Last I checked, Congressional approval is at 13%. How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, a representative legislature?
It is sadly representative of the piss poor voter turnout for congressional elections which are always poor but this last year was the poorest on record for about 70 years. I find it a joke that people simply will not go vote and then disapprove of the congress they end up with.
Unfortunately, we're generally left with a candidate from each party who isn't representative of anyone's interests but the party's. I won't go vote if neither candidate is appropriate in my eyes. I think the problem is with the way primaries are conducted. Only those most closely linked to one of the two major parties participate. Parliament would solve that, but good luck getting that change to take place.
A message to whom, though? To the poll counters? If you'll recall the Green party's attempts at being the third party, you may recall that Ralph Nader was ridiculed specifically because of his low vote count. If someone sees that a write-in got 20 votes, it's going to be more of a joke than anything, IMO.
Nah, that's just an excuse. You surely could have found someone you didnt hate if you couldnt find someone you liked. But doing nothing and then bitching is really worthless.
Oh I see, as long as I vote for someone I don't hate, even if I disagree with their entire political stance and what I know they will do in office, then everything is fine and the system works? Don't be ridiculous, people like you who vote for the lesser evil because you believe it's your duty to vote are the reason this country will continue to go down the drain until we have a revolution.
A revolution. That's a good one. You can't even be arsed to go vote and I'm supposed to believe you're ready to lay down your life in a revolution? Thanks for the laugh.
Gerrymandering probably contributes a lot. And I suspect it's also one of the reasons for poor voter turnout - that "what's the point" feeling is what keeps a lot of people from bothering to vote.
Completely agree. As Rand Paul recently pointed out, what stops the government from getting a warrant and just seizing all the data that wireless companies collect. What's going to stop the wireless companies from using our data?
It's worse than the Patriot Act. I read the new law.
If the Patriot Act was renewed, it would be better for your privacy. Because now companies will store data in their corporate servers "potentially forever" instead of deleting them and passing them to the agency for 3-5 years. Those corporate servers are less secure than government facilities and they can allow anyone to access them. (no longer background-checked agents, just random telecom employees).
Oh and corporations will get huge money from the NSA to store data and build more facilities.
Yeah, that's page one. Pages two through seven hundred detail all the ways in which these basic concepts can be legally ignored, and why the government gets to keep telling citizens to go fuck themselves.
Or, at least, that's what most americans go ahead and assume at this point. I have no idea if it's true, but that's how basically every other bill is structured these days. No reason to think this one is any different.
But here's how I see it... If this gets passed, progress will likely stop, at least until it expires like the Patriot Act has. I don't want a slight step in the right direction, I want a complete overhaul.
But why accept something that's a mere minor step in the right direction when you could at least block it and try to add a little bit more? Seriously, we shouldn't just be accepting something because it's slightly better than before.
The USA Freedom Act would put new constraints on how the government could obtain records under the PATRIOT Act and other national security laws. Instead of obtaining massive troves of data in bulk, the NSA could only ask companies for data on a specific entity like a person, account or device. And the government would have to show that the individual is associated with a foreign power or terrorist group.
I wouldn't want my government to completely stop surveillance, but obviously they would need be kept in check somehow. Is this not what this bill proposes?
Separately, the USA Freedom Act would require the intelligence community to be more transparent about how much data it’s collecting, and allow private companies — especially the technology sector — to be more open about how often they turn over information to the feds. It would create a new opportunity for civil liberties defenders to lobby the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and force the government to declassify major new opinions from FISC judges.
I wouldn't want my government to completely stop surveillance
I would. They can get a warrant if there's probable cause, like the 4th amendment says. Government bulk surveillance of innocent civilians is 100% illegal and wrong.
Thank you. I don't want someone coming into my house snooping into my stuff without my permission, why would I want it happening to my data? If they believe I have something to hide they can get a warrant, that's why they exist.
... It just allows the government access to the data that carriers keep with a warrant. You realize the carriers already keep everything you do right? Please don't be so ignorant to not already know that.
You can't get a warrant if you don't have probable cause. You can't have probable clause without documented suspicion such as the metadata gathered by the Patriot Act.
You are basically not giving any alternative to law enforcement or spies. So how can they ever get a warrant?
You can only have suspicion, if you have something that shows evidence of that suspicion to a judge (which means you need bulk collection from millions of people; otherwise how can you be aware of any suspicious people in existence?)
According to the latest OIG report on the Patriot Act, pages 39, 43, 44, 45. Yes It has been valuable in counter-terrorism cases.
People just don't want to believe that the government actually needs the Patriot Act to perform its function, otherwise they can't even get warrants very easily without corroborating "rats".
And you know how terrorists and cartels deal with rats.
According to the latest OIG report on the Patriot Act, pages 39, 43, 44, 45. Yes It has been valuable in counter-terrorism cases.
I guess I'd have to read that document. Personally, I think making otherwise-peaceful foreign citizens not become terrorists in the first place is a better policy than creating said terrorists, realizing your mistake, and then spying on the entire world because they might be terrorists.
By what metric do we define its value? Does saving one life make the global dragnet surveillance justified?
They do have a damn good reason. You're not allowing them to articulate that reason to a judge to even get a warrant.
No one was prosecuted based on flimsy evidence. No one innocent was harmed by the Patriot Act. They are used to generate leads and those leads help get the warrant from a judge to start an investigation.
You can't have suspicion without data collection. You can't say "I need a warrant" because "he looks funny".
You need data (from spying) to get a warrant. Otherwise you wouldn't even know such a criminal exists.
When a detective gets evidence from a crime scene, he gets a warrant. In counter-terror, there usually isn't a crime scene or usually there's no identifying evidence. (no one can be identified). So how do you get a warrant in counter-terrorism without infiltrating or "rats" or spying?
You can't infiltrate them, they'll make you kill innocent people to get recruited. You can't find rats, because they torture all rats. So spying is your only option to even begin to get a warrant on a terror suspect.
You can't have probable clause without documented suspicion such as the metadata gathered by the Patriot Act...You can only have suspicion, if you have something that shows evidence of that suspicion to a judge (which means you need bulk collection from millions of people; otherwise how can you be aware of any suspicious people in existence?)
9/11 happened not because of the lack of information 1, 2 but because of the lack of sharing existing information between Intelligence Agencies and people at the top ignoring warnings.
No, 9/11 happened because when the terrorists called California from Algiers, the NSA didn't know because they weren't looking at metadata phone information. Now they are. You are 100% wrong.
Did you even know about the Algiers-California thing?
Washington Times: FBI admits no major cases cracked with Patriot Act snooping powers
The FBI did not admit such a thing. Stop misinterpreting information you liar.
The OIG said that the agents they interviewed did not tell them about major cases. They did in fact tell them the tools were valuable. They did not disclose major cases to them. They did not interview the whole of the FBI or every agent or every case.
The Boston Bombings happened
Because you can't arrest someone who has NO CRIMINAL RECORD AND HAS 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. The FBI interviewed them. Clearly the tools they had worked. They can't arrest them for their political opinions. They were lone-wolves. They did not contact other terror groups.
The Patriot Act is not nor ever was needed.
It was always needed and it will stay in law in the coming weeks. You'll see.
I didn't link to any conspiracy theory websites.
Journalists don't care about proper counter-terrorism, so you don't have to.
No, 9/11 happened because when the terrorists called California from Algiers, the NSA didn't know because they weren't looking at metadata phone information.
As mentioned not only in the articles cited but in the 9/11 commission report, other sources of evidence existed and other means existed to prevent such a tragedy. And that's the point. That bulk warrantless unconstitutional spying isn't the only option and in many cases is detrimental because there is just too much "noise" that distracts from relevant information.
Where are your sources saying that had PRISM existed (and a version of it did see the USA today article) 9/11 been prevented?
As cited in the Washington Post article, The CIA showed Condoleezza Rice credible evidence of a bin Laden plot obtained by traditional means and she chose to ignore it. The problem isn't and wasn't lack of a patriot act but lack of listening to existing evidence, much as you're doing right now.
Washington Times: FBI admits no major cases cracked with Patriot Act snooping powers
The FBI did not admit such a thing. Stop misinterpreting information you liar.
What's to misinterpret? I quoted the title of the article which also happens to be an accurate representation of the article itself. Those aren't my words. So how am I lying? Calm down.
The OIG said that the agents they interviewed did not tell them about major cases. They did in fact tell them the tools were valuable. They did not disclose major cases to them. They did not interview the whole of the FBI or every agent or every case.
Source?
Because you can't arrest someone who has NO CRIMINAL RECORD AND HAS 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. The FBI interviewed them. Clearly the tools they had worked.
How can you say that if by your admission they avoided detection by prism which is designed to see if they contact other terrorist groups?
They did not contact other terror groups.
The FBI interviewed them.
Because the Russian intelligence agency tipped them off not because of information they came across via bulk data collection. So in that respect the patriot act failed.
Clearly the told they had worked
The told they had that we're not questioning. The tools obtained under the patriot act failed.
It was always needed and it will stay in law in the coming weeks.
It may stay law in some form in the coming weeks, that doesn't make it necessary.
You'll see.
Are you making a threat? Sounds like a threat.
Journalists don't care about proper counter-terrorism, so you don't have to.
Right. And by avoiding citing sources you are obviously far more credible in your claims.
Wanting them to have a warrant first is fair enough, and this bill as far as I understand doesn't include that. But it would end bulk surveillance, again as I understand it.
Technically it doesn't matter whether the bill includes a requirement for a warrant, because the Constitution requires warrants in order for most seizures to be "reasonable." But we saw how well that worked with the NSA. Until a court calls it "unreasonable," they basically have free reign.
Sounds like a step up from the patriot act, if nothing else.
I hate how these things are labeled though. The Freedom Act should be called something about data collection. The Intelligence Transparency Act or something (if that was the focus of the bill).
I'll stop being cynical when government agencies prove domestic spying is actually useful for counterterrorism. So far, nothing in 15 years besides helping with drug busts. Makes one question its validity.
"But without the government / government surveillance, who would keep me safe?"
It's funny how people like this want safety provided by the government, yet the only real reason there is danger in the first place is because the governmental policies created it.
They're trying to get one terrorist to protect them from another, and they're trading everyone's rights in exchange.
But he's asking if that's actually the case with this bill. Does the fine text actually have unreasonable exceptions that could be exploited like you say, or are you assuming?
I would read it myself, but I'm at work. And lazy.
The Patriot act was never meant to be used in the way it was (see Sensenbrenner's desire to get rid of it) and now we're to believe that a new law with the same cute style name won't end up being abused in a few years? Back before September 11th if you tried half the shit they're pulling now you'd have an inspector general so far up your ass you'd never sit again.
I'm in the same boat. I'm at work, and I frankly don't really care. Expressing my opinion on the thing 5 comments in on a reddit comment thread has no impact on anything. If he wants to know what's in the fine print, he can go read it himself.
You seemed to be inquiring as to why people are against the USA Freedom Act, and I did my best to explain it to you. Why does my personal opinion on the thing matter?
The kind of person that gets told one thing, gets upset about it, likes being upset about it, and refuses to go into further detail or discussion about it. You didn't explain shit, you said some stuff which you yourself admitted had no idea if it's true or not, but you went ahead and based your opinion off of it anyway. That kind of person.
I think you're either misreading my original comment, or I've done a poor job expressing my point. I'm not upset about anything, and I haven't mentioned my own position or understanding of the bill at all. Nor do I really care to.
American's are highly cynical regarding politics. It's reached a point where people just assume that every bill is loaded full of bullshit backdoor policies and loopholes, and that our media outlets just read official press releases.
This is something that as a foreigner I've never understood about US politics. I know you guys like to bang on about how your democracy is better than everyone else's, but this whole bill being a thousand pages long and containing an extra two hundred clauses that pertain to the state of the roads in western Iowa and alfalfa subsidies in Missouri: the practise seems guaranteed to set your system up for undue lobbying, and to defeat effective legislation. Why doesn't a bill on subject A remain on point, and subjects B, C, D, E and F get voted in during subsequent proposals rather than being subsumed into subject A? Surely something's going wrong somewhere along the line.
Well, it's hard to give you a frame of reference without knowing where you're from.
I know you guys like to bang on about how your democracy is better than everyone else's
I've only ever heard this sort of thing from either ignorant rednecks, or as self deprecating humor. A lot of americans like to make fun of ourselves by posturing as if we're "the greatest ____" (fill in the blank with anything and everything), which I think often gets misconstrued by those unfamiliar with our culture as sincere.
but this whole bill being a thousand pages long and containing an extra two hundred clauses that pertain to the state of the roads in western Iowa and alfalfa subsidies in Missouri: the practise seems guaranteed to set your system up for undue lobbying, and to defeat effective legislation
This is a pretty common refrain from the "right wing" groups that rail against "big government." There's certainly truth to the fact that all of the pork can be somewhat problematic.
The reality is that the U.S. is huge, and each individual state holds a decent amount of legislative power within it's borders. State Government is where a lot of the real work gets done.
If you think of the United States of America as the European Union... 200 years from now, and states like Iowa and Missouri more like Spain, Germany, and Greece, you'll start to have a better understanding of how the US operates.
You'll notice that when the EU passes resolutions and such, they usually have to add in little caveats to appease each of the different member countries and convince them to sign. What you're talking about is simply the natural evolution of those sort of process after a few hundred years of power creep.
Why doesn't a bill on subject A remain on point, and subjects B, C, D, E and F get voted in during subsequent proposals rather than being subsumed into subject A?
The argument is that you'd never be able to get 50 states, a large number of which have populations as big or larger than European countries, to agree on anything otherwise.
"that's how basically every other bill is structured these days"
See, this is why I responded to you earlier. Here you quite deliberately state your own assumptions on the matter, and also implicitly offer your opinion on the worth of most federal bills. Furthermore, where did you get your ideas that the other pages can circumvent what is stated in page one if you don't know if it's true or not?
"that's how basically every other bill is structured these days"
Was my attempt at sympathizing with the people who have this type of response, because it really is true that quite a large number of bills are often filled with all sorts of legalese that tends to encroach upon the original stated point of the bill. I mean, just turn on any political talk radio from either side of the debate and you'll hear commentators discussing in what ways the actual contents of the thing match the sales pitch.
Furthermore, where did you get your ideas that the other pages can circumvent what is stated in page one if you don't know if it's true or not?
I think where the confusion lies here is that you're either overlooking the implication of this statement:
Or, at least, that's what most americans go ahead and assume at this point.
... or that statement wasn't clear enough to begin with. It's supposed to be a transition from where I'm giving the hypothetical response, to where I begin adding my own commentary to the mix.
Proof, I believe, is what you need here.
I still don't understand what it is that you're expecting me to prove? That the sort of people who would be immediately against the USA Freedom Act likely assume that it's not as well meaning as it appears? How would I even begin to go about proving something like that? Conduct some sort of poll?
It's 44 pages, and most of it is double spaced. It takes at most ten minutes to read. If your gonna have an opinion on something you should at least read the damned thing first.
Your second statement does. But considering the way you changed the way you type when confronted your likely just the type of person who strokes their ego on the Internet, so there's no point in arguing with you.
Congress can add all sorts of stuff, like provisions extending the very parts of the US PATRIOT Act the bill was meant to defeat for several years, completely undermining the original stated purpose of the bill before it goes to the floor for vote.
It's not actually what it does. Much like the assault weapons ban and "common sense" gun control. It's made to sound appealing so uneducated people will be attracted to it. A comedian did a gig like this and walked around asking people if they wanted to end women's suffrage. Suffrage is the right to vote, but it sounds like suffer, and many people said they'd love to end women's suffrage. It's a bit like that.
I know he was. I'd need to dig up an article and I'm on mobile right now. I know, an excuse. If we still had the Patriot Act, I'm sure the NSA would just do it for me by now (;
54
u/mankind_is_beautiful Jun 01 '15
Non-American here, is that not what you want? Am I misunderstanding something?