New Bill Would Stop NSA’s Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Data(thedailybeast.com)
thedailybeast.com
New Bill Would Stop NSA’s Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Data
https://www.thedailybeast.com/wyden-paul-amash-lofgren-bill-would-stop-nsa-mass-collection-of-us-phone-data
57 comments
I'm not being snarky but when did we say we expect perfection? And we want it at all cost (i.e., we'll give up liberty and freedom)? Yes, that's been the general narrative but where did it come from? Where there protests? Was there a vote? Are we getting what we want, or wanting what we get?
There's always been kind of a vote.
Just a for instance, but I think the patriot act passed the senate 99 to 1.
And we got rid of that one guy who voted against, and we replaced him with a more "law and order" type guy.
So you gotta figure almost every American has at least had opportunities to vote for their senators. (We can agree that not everyone did, but the opportunities were there.) And those votes resulted in a senate where something like the patriot act could pass without more than a single vote against it.
Just a for instance, but I think the patriot act passed the senate 99 to 1.
And we got rid of that one guy who voted against, and we replaced him with a more "law and order" type guy.
So you gotta figure almost every American has at least had opportunities to vote for their senators. (We can agree that not everyone did, but the opportunities were there.) And those votes resulted in a senate where something like the patriot act could pass without more than a single vote against it.
Russ Feingold is the only politician I have been actually excited to vote for, and I wonder if he will run again in 2022. He will be fairly old by then.
I've never lived in Wisconsin but I've always been a fan of his. When I was younger and more naive I hoped he'd run for president.
They don't say it outright, but basically everyone grieving after an attack wants the government to have been perfect enough to prevent the attack.
...and considering the cost of such perfection is considered tactless at best.
This is why the terrorists have won on 9/11. They wanted to damage the US, erode its institutions, make it weaker and less attractive in the eyes of people, and they achieved it. Not through killing people, of course, but through the continued reaction of those who stayed alive. This makes me sad.
This is why the terrorists have won on 9/11. They wanted to damage the US, erode its institutions, make it weaker and less attractive in the eyes of people, and they achieved it. Not through killing people, of course, but through the continued reaction of those who stayed alive. This makes me sad.
Yes, but is being in tears asking "how did this happen?" license to diminish liberty / freedom? Or simply the ideal opportunity to do so?
Also, there was plenty of talk about who and where, yet close to zero discussion as to why. Why is important. The truth is, more than once, UBL warned "Get out of our neighborhood." The USA ignored those requests. That doesn't justify the attacks, but it certainly creates a case of "I'm surprised you're surprised." Yet the (American) public never got the true clear story.
Instead, someone cooked up a like about WMD's, a sovereign nation was invaded in that same area, and in the end over 100,000 __civilians__ were killed. Does that solve why, or re-enforce? And still no transparency?
Also, there was plenty of talk about who and where, yet close to zero discussion as to why. Why is important. The truth is, more than once, UBL warned "Get out of our neighborhood." The USA ignored those requests. That doesn't justify the attacks, but it certainly creates a case of "I'm surprised you're surprised." Yet the (American) public never got the true clear story.
Instead, someone cooked up a like about WMD's, a sovereign nation was invaded in that same area, and in the end over 100,000 __civilians__ were killed. Does that solve why, or re-enforce? And still no transparency?
The US Intelligence Community as a whole is under constant demand for perfection. Not every individual unit (I've worked with several, and it varies), but institutionally the executive branch and military leadership applies the pressure of perfection at the top, and that pressure trickles down, skewing data, analysis, and policy making (and policy execution!).
I personally blame Hoover for the state of things, but as a whole, our government is used to control, and complete control relies on complete information. If something is missed because it fell between the cracks in the IC's sampling rate, the executives publicly blame the IC for not informing them, which ends with demands for a higher sampling rate. Look deeply into the causes of our most recent invasion of Iraq, and you'll see this pattern pretty clearly.
I personally blame Hoover for the state of things, but as a whole, our government is used to control, and complete control relies on complete information. If something is missed because it fell between the cracks in the IC's sampling rate, the executives publicly blame the IC for not informing them, which ends with demands for a higher sampling rate. Look deeply into the causes of our most recent invasion of Iraq, and you'll see this pattern pretty clearly.
The Intel community tries to predict and monitor international events and persons of interest. But none of that requires perfection. More false positives wouldn't be a problem if CIA or NSA could predict even ONE significant international uprising before it happens. But in 75 years of trying, they never have. So there's no reason to believe they ever will. Perfection be damned.
The reason Intel dragnets exist is that politicians always feel compelled to do SOMETHING after a domestic crisis, even if they know the ensuing compromise of civil liberties will accomplish nothing toward preventing the same crisis from recurring. But voters who don't pay attention (and don't really care) are appeased by bold reaction (and the thought that bad guys can't keep secrets from US). A symbolic knee-jerk usually violent reaction all they really wanted (like invading Iraq).
Frankly, after 75 years of 99% fruitless and increasingly expensive machinations by the OSS and CIA and NSA, all of us who are paying attention know know damn well that US Intel agencies really don't accomplish much that's useful to peacetime national security. That is, unless Intel's unblinking eye is turned toward targets who are of personal interest, domestically like MLK or PETA, or internationally like Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega. Then politicians unconcerned with due process like Nixon and Cheney can freely use that intel to attack their personal "enemies of the state".
30 years after the end of the cold war, THAT's why domestic Intel agencies continue to exist. All of the US military services have their own Intel agencies for use during war. They don't need the CIA or NSA. Only Presidents do. And IMHO, for all the wrong reasons.
The reason Intel dragnets exist is that politicians always feel compelled to do SOMETHING after a domestic crisis, even if they know the ensuing compromise of civil liberties will accomplish nothing toward preventing the same crisis from recurring. But voters who don't pay attention (and don't really care) are appeased by bold reaction (and the thought that bad guys can't keep secrets from US). A symbolic knee-jerk usually violent reaction all they really wanted (like invading Iraq).
Frankly, after 75 years of 99% fruitless and increasingly expensive machinations by the OSS and CIA and NSA, all of us who are paying attention know know damn well that US Intel agencies really don't accomplish much that's useful to peacetime national security. That is, unless Intel's unblinking eye is turned toward targets who are of personal interest, domestically like MLK or PETA, or internationally like Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega. Then politicians unconcerned with due process like Nixon and Cheney can freely use that intel to attack their personal "enemies of the state".
30 years after the end of the cold war, THAT's why domestic Intel agencies continue to exist. All of the US military services have their own Intel agencies for use during war. They don't need the CIA or NSA. Only Presidents do. And IMHO, for all the wrong reasons.
> More false positives wouldn't be a problem if CIA or NSA could predict even ONE significant international uprising before it happens.
Just because it's not in the headlines doesn't mean they didn't do anything. It's just that if the successfully stopped a terrorist attack for example, you wouldn't hear about it, both because it's no longer big news (nothing happened), and because those agencies would want to prevent the lose of assets as much as they can, so they wouldn't publish the information either.
I think the CIA and NSA have probably done a lot for the safety of America and US citizens (especially in times of peace). However (based on no evidence, just a hunch) I think that most of those cases, they just needed the basic tools already in their disposal (like monitoring suspects based on actual evidence and following a court order approval), and that the extreme means they use don't have a big impact when it comes to the security of lives (US or global).
Just because it's not in the headlines doesn't mean they didn't do anything. It's just that if the successfully stopped a terrorist attack for example, you wouldn't hear about it, both because it's no longer big news (nothing happened), and because those agencies would want to prevent the lose of assets as much as they can, so they wouldn't publish the information either.
I think the CIA and NSA have probably done a lot for the safety of America and US citizens (especially in times of peace). However (based on no evidence, just a hunch) I think that most of those cases, they just needed the basic tools already in their disposal (like monitoring suspects based on actual evidence and following a court order approval), and that the extreme means they use don't have a big impact when it comes to the security of lives (US or global).
I'm no expert but pretty much everyone was for the Patriot act. It was voted on like 2 weeks after 9/11. Crucially, it was also supposed to retire. And now we have the freedom act, essentially the same thing...(I'm like 80% on it being called freedom act)
Was it re-named? In any case, afaik, when the PA was renewed the reach and breadth of the Patriot Act was __expanded__. You'd be surprised how many people who are a fan of that administration have forgotten (?) theirs rights / liberty was diminished by BHO and the signing of PA #2.
The problem is that politicians are acutely damaged when there are successful attacks, and are not affected when surveillance is overly broad, so of course they favor less privacy.
To correct this, politicians must be at least as susceptible to surveillance as the general public, if not more so.
One way to do this is to make all collected information public after 25 years. Long enough to avoid compromising ongoing investigations, but short enough that politicians will be thinking of themselves.
To correct this, politicians must be at least as susceptible to surveillance as the general public, if not more so.
One way to do this is to make all collected information public after 25 years. Long enough to avoid compromising ongoing investigations, but short enough that politicians will be thinking of themselves.
I really like the start of your comment. I see that if something bad happens, the politicians shift blame to the Intel community for missing it. Then they put pressure for more complete information from them. Then later, when there's civil outcry over a surveillance state, the politicians shift blame onto the Intel community for being too invasive. Politicians man.
Do you think that spy agencies' powers and budgets are a direct response to public opinion or public demand? I find that intuition kind of strange because NSA, for example, was created by a classified executive order and operated for two decades or so before its existence was publicly acknowledged by the government at all.
We don't live in a Minority Report world. We can't put people in jail for what we think they are about to do. They actually have to commit a crime to be charged.
If you do prevent everything, people claim you did nothing. Your organization gets its funding cut because it isn't needed.
(America has had to ramp up it's military repeatedly for new wars. We routinely shrink our armed forces during peace time, feeling it isn't needed. I strongly suspect this shrinkage has helped make us a target at times. Then we ramp back up.)
Though I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion.
If you do prevent everything, people claim you did nothing. Your organization gets its funding cut because it isn't needed.
(America has had to ramp up it's military repeatedly for new wars. We routinely shrink our armed forces during peace time, feeling it isn't needed. I strongly suspect this shrinkage has helped make us a target at times. Then we ramp back up.)
Though I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion.
I worry that these problems are too hard. Most human groups become corrupted, or at best, complacent. Without competing forces, this goes unchecked.
Hopefully some people conquer the multi-planetary challenge before we completely conquer ourselves.
Hopefully some people conquer the multi-planetary challenge before we completely conquer ourselves.
[deleted]
There are implicit agreements that society has to itself and the entities that coalesce in it. A major event tends to have a disproportionate impact on the population's perception of its institutions. It is in human nature to search for something to blame, it helps people rationalize the issues at hand. I don't think people realize how many incidents are resolved before it even reaches the TV and that is a good thing.
Even if society was willing to exchange more privacy for a higher number of unpredictable 'negative' incidents, the question changes from what, to how many. For example, how many incidents of X magnitude would be required for people to change their minds? What if you only need 1 incident of Y magnitude to change the shape of your society in a negative way, potentially rocking its very core? Would you take the risk for your individual's privacy? You have to remember that an event can be come in different ways such as a terror attack, a semi-natural disaster, a cyber attack, an espionage that rocks the foundation of a key industry in your country, etc.
I think some of the questions society should be asking are: What is an acceptable degree of personal privacy that we should strive for? What are the blockers to ensure the material is not used for nefarious reasons? Are the right institutions in place and are they solid enough? How can society engage more and have a better understanding of the issues at hand?
Even if society was willing to exchange more privacy for a higher number of unpredictable 'negative' incidents, the question changes from what, to how many. For example, how many incidents of X magnitude would be required for people to change their minds? What if you only need 1 incident of Y magnitude to change the shape of your society in a negative way, potentially rocking its very core? Would you take the risk for your individual's privacy? You have to remember that an event can be come in different ways such as a terror attack, a semi-natural disaster, a cyber attack, an espionage that rocks the foundation of a key industry in your country, etc.
I think some of the questions society should be asking are: What is an acceptable degree of personal privacy that we should strive for? What are the blockers to ensure the material is not used for nefarious reasons? Are the right institutions in place and are they solid enough? How can society engage more and have a better understanding of the issues at hand?
I think EVERYONE doing data collection, the NSA and all the surveillance capitalists are hoarders.
I think it's a rookie mistake for newly minted officers in the armed forces to delay decisions because they want perfect information.
In the same way, commercial entities collecting information don't NEED it, but they're collecting it and swapping it and screwing up society by doing it.
I think scaling back all this nonsense will make us all happier and healther.
I think it's a rookie mistake for newly minted officers in the armed forces to delay decisions because they want perfect information.
In the same way, commercial entities collecting information don't NEED it, but they're collecting it and swapping it and screwing up society by doing it.
I think scaling back all this nonsense will make us all happier and healther.
The NSA prevents thousands of potential terrorist attacks each year...we just don't hear about it because it's classified information. Of course one or two will always slip through the cracks. No process is perfect.
[deleted]
Do you have data to back this up?
Of course... here's a link to a classified document you can check out.
Never believe marketing.
And here is the problem with the unaccountability of the NSA: if not even the broad outline of its operational statistics is available for public scrutiny, and we can't trust the politicians who do have that data available (assuming it is), how can we have a meaningful public debate about this?
They'll tell you it's ended, but it'll never really end.
That isn't the point of having laws to cover this stuff. It is to make it so the intercepted information can not be freely used and/or shared. The laws also enable whistle blowers.
In theory. In practice if they want to get you they'll use parallel construction.
Agreed. Considering this is coming so longer after the Snowden revelations I have to believe it means some sort of Plan B has been sorted out and Congress has gotten the okay to outlaw what is soon to be obsolete.
Yes. The cynic in me immediately concluded after reading the headline: "then either the UK's or Australia's hoovering apparatus is finally up to spec, and the NSA can get the data from them".
Yes. I'm presuming there's some sort of off-shore component to Plan B. It's not illegal if you're outside the law.
You're depending on undefined behavior of the term "you".
For example, if "you" means the singular poster then you are correct and your comment is a truism.
However, if "you" means the citizenry then the cost of parallel construction at scale clearly exceeds the cost of using the mass collection program currently under discussion.
Edit: clarification
For example, if "you" means the singular poster then you are correct and your comment is a truism.
However, if "you" means the citizenry then the cost of parallel construction at scale clearly exceeds the cost of using the mass collection program currently under discussion.
Edit: clarification
That may have been true at one point ... but is that still the case now? What about 5-10 years from now, with additional IoT devices.
> They'll tell you it's ended, but it'll never really end
The number one hurdle to changing these laws is apathy. A narrow majority of Americans oppose mass surveillance [1], but the intensity of their support is weak. Meanwhile--anecdotally--those who intensely care about the issue are largely apathetic. As a result the other side, which is equally opinionated but less apathetic, wins.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americ...
The number one hurdle to changing these laws is apathy. A narrow majority of Americans oppose mass surveillance [1], but the intensity of their support is weak. Meanwhile--anecdotally--those who intensely care about the issue are largely apathetic. As a result the other side, which is equally opinionated but less apathetic, wins.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americ...
It's not that those that care are lazy, it's more of a "what can really be done" attitude. As you've shown, most are opposed to this yet it exists. This is because we're past the era where, by large, the representatives actually represent. These have become seats to either fight for your own personal beliefs, increase your income and the income of those around you, or both.
I mean really, what are you supposed to do? Call your representative? Most don't care and the person you talk to is usually just a proxy who's job is to answer, nod their head, and make you feel like you're being heard.
Maybe protest? Good luck, you'll be demonized by the media calling you a bunch of homeless people because the only ones that have the time to protest are largely those who don't have jobs. There's also laws made that keep you from protesting in various areas so you can't even inconvenience the decision makers into noticing you. When they've had enough you either just saw it's a public health hazard to have people protesting because they're sleeping there and use that as an excuse to break it up by force, or you can just pay an actor to pretend to be part of the crowd to act violently towards the police and use that as an excuse to break up the protests.
Bottom lines is that I believe we've reached a tipping point where the people have lost control of the country.
I mean really, what are you supposed to do? Call your representative? Most don't care and the person you talk to is usually just a proxy who's job is to answer, nod their head, and make you feel like you're being heard.
Maybe protest? Good luck, you'll be demonized by the media calling you a bunch of homeless people because the only ones that have the time to protest are largely those who don't have jobs. There's also laws made that keep you from protesting in various areas so you can't even inconvenience the decision makers into noticing you. When they've had enough you either just saw it's a public health hazard to have people protesting because they're sleeping there and use that as an excuse to break it up by force, or you can just pay an actor to pretend to be part of the crowd to act violently towards the police and use that as an excuse to break up the protests.
Bottom lines is that I believe we've reached a tipping point where the people have lost control of the country.
> it's more of a "what can really be done" attitude
I once offered to help to host a breakfast for my Congresswoman to show there was a base of motivated people, in New York, who would back her if she put forward anti-NSA legislation. This was post-Snowden. Her office was open minded. Attendance was dismal. We all agreed to re-focus on other issues.
Another example! Two bills in Albany. One regarding Equifax. One regarding something with teachers. I'm helping with the Equifax bill. Guess which one had phones ringing off the hook with supporters calling in? Guess which one I had to concede had a more-motivated base, and was therefore--politically--the policy to put forward?
People still control the country. It's just the people who show up. If you don't show up and participate, that's fine, that's your choice. But it's a choice.
I once offered to help to host a breakfast for my Congresswoman to show there was a base of motivated people, in New York, who would back her if she put forward anti-NSA legislation. This was post-Snowden. Her office was open minded. Attendance was dismal. We all agreed to re-focus on other issues.
Another example! Two bills in Albany. One regarding Equifax. One regarding something with teachers. I'm helping with the Equifax bill. Guess which one had phones ringing off the hook with supporters calling in? Guess which one I had to concede had a more-motivated base, and was therefore--politically--the policy to put forward?
People still control the country. It's just the people who show up. If you don't show up and participate, that's fine, that's your choice. But it's a choice.
Simply labeling anyone without the time to join you, or the belief that it can help as the problem is bullshit. Your premise, that if more people banded together is a false one. The ability of politicians and corporate entities to divide people with wedges, to destroy public education and healthcare, and to gerrymander is potent. You see the end results of that in a broad population and conclude the problem is with the population not seeing your point, but that is the point.
> The ability of politicians and corporate entities to divide people with wedges, to destroy public education and healthcare, and to gerrymander is potent
The people who talk about opposing mass surveillance are, on average, better educated and higher paid than the average American. When they can't bother to show up, it's noted.
In order for something to be divided it must first exist as a unit. It takes a shockingly-small number of people organizing to a shockingly-little extent to exert change on representatives. Particularly if those people are geographically spread out.
The people who talk about opposing mass surveillance are, on average, better educated and higher paid than the average American. When they can't bother to show up, it's noted.
In order for something to be divided it must first exist as a unit. It takes a shockingly-small number of people organizing to a shockingly-little extent to exert change on representatives. Particularly if those people are geographically spread out.
The people who talk about opposing mass surveillance are, on average, better educated and higher paid than the average American. When they can't bother to show up, it's noted.
It’s expected, because they are a minute fraction of the population and concentrated on the coasts. They are not needed to win elections, and generally have the most to lose through radical action.
In order for something to be divided it must first exist as a unit. It takes a shockingly-small number of people organizing to a shockingly-little extent to exert change on representatives. Particularly if those people are geographically spread out.
It depends on what that change is. If it’s some minor policy issue or a social issue, you can be right. If it touches the MIC then frankly you haven’t paid attention to the last century of American politics. We are divided, and we are conquered, and showing up at your shindig isn’t changing that. For most people life is too hard and their place in society is too tenuous to care so deeply about mass surveillance. If you want them to care, improve their lives in tangible ways first. People struggling with two jobs and a mountain of debt, who are one hospitalization away from bankruptcy have more immediate concerns.
It’s expected, because they are a minute fraction of the population and concentrated on the coasts. They are not needed to win elections, and generally have the most to lose through radical action.
In order for something to be divided it must first exist as a unit. It takes a shockingly-small number of people organizing to a shockingly-little extent to exert change on representatives. Particularly if those people are geographically spread out.
It depends on what that change is. If it’s some minor policy issue or a social issue, you can be right. If it touches the MIC then frankly you haven’t paid attention to the last century of American politics. We are divided, and we are conquered, and showing up at your shindig isn’t changing that. For most people life is too hard and their place in society is too tenuous to care so deeply about mass surveillance. If you want them to care, improve their lives in tangible ways first. People struggling with two jobs and a mountain of debt, who are one hospitalization away from bankruptcy have more immediate concerns.
> The ability of politicians and corporate entities to divide people with wedges, to destroy public education and healthcare, and to gerrymander is potent.
Boom. You really hit the nail on the head there.
Boom. You really hit the nail on the head there.
Let's take it as fact that your suggestion works, whether it does or not. Is that really the best or only way to affect political change? The poor, uneducated and disenfranchised wouldn't even think to do something like this simply out of pure ignorance.
Lying can never be a stable policy. Secret surveillance is lying. It is unstable and can’t last because it leads to undefined behavior.
There should be a convention for alerting users that content is paywalled :(
We've updated the link from the paywalled https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-call-for-termination-....
Hey everyone, let's watch this bill die in congress!
I would not be surprised if some particularly damaging scandals for one or more of the sponsoring congress members suddenly came to light.
Wow, two Rs and two Ds sponsoring this Bill. Does that mean it has a snowball's chance in hell and this isn't just more Political Theater?
U.S. phone data?
They are essentially siphoning up the entire internet, what is the point of this stunt?
They are essentially siphoning up the entire internet, what is the point of this stunt?
Would be good to also take care of illegal spying on presidential campaigns while they're at it. And of rubberstamping FISA warrants based on fake, uncorroborated "dossiers".
> Would be good to also take care of illegal spying on presidential campaigns while they're at it.
Even if that was a real problem, it's obviously impossible for a law to “take care of it”, only to outlaw it, which, as we’re discussing “illegal spying”, it already has, by definition.
Even if that was a real problem, it's obviously impossible for a law to “take care of it”, only to outlaw it, which, as we’re discussing “illegal spying”, it already has, by definition.
Sure, but it seems like it'd be valuable to make the FISA court less rubber stamp happy, no? Gosh, maybe even require corroborated evidence before requests are granted.
m0zg(1)
Press X to doubt.
It does amaze me that we are ok with foreign intelligence having the data, just not domestic intelligence. The theory being that the fbi and nsa have more power to effect our lives than the kgb, I suppose, but... Really? It is ok for the KGB to have the data and use it for whatever they would like?
Since the impetus is always on NSA to gather intelligence and prevent the next disaster all they can say is "We need more data". No, they don't. No amount of data will prevent every criminal act. Instead we need to revisit the trade offs made between freedom, privacy and bringing criminals to justice.