[HN Gopher] Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance...
___________________________________________________________________
Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after
midnight
Author : WhyUVoteGarbage
Score : 228 points
Date : 2024-04-20 11:40 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Does anyone want to suggest some reasons why, the one thing that
| D+R always, always, always agree on is this:
|
| US Gov/LEO/IC must be gifted the most power possible
|
| to surveil Americans _who are not suspected of a crime_
| kolanos wrote:
| Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
| outlore wrote:
| horseshoe theory. D+R are not so different. D in US is more
| right than other countries' left leaning parties
| dexwiz wrote:
| Both sides are mostly rich or put there by the rich. A few
| populist reps get outsized airtime, but that isn't the
| majority of people running the show.
| ryandrake wrote:
| There are a lot more similarities between "both sides" than
| that. They make a big show out of arguing over a small
| number of things they disagree on. But for many important
| things, they don't significantly differ.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on indefinite
| detention of American citizens on US soil.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on domestic
| spying, dragnet-style data collection and warrantless
| wiretapping.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on allowing
| extra-judicial targeted killings.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on the use of
| unmanned drones, either for combat or domestic
| surveillance.
|
| The two parties both support pre-emptive "cyber" war and
| non-defensive hacking.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on their
| support for continuing the War On Terror.
|
| The two parties both support maintaining US military bases
| around the world.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on favoring
| Keynesian economics.
|
| The two parties support delegating monetary policy
| decisions to the Federal Reserve, including support for
| quantitative easing.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of
| earmarks and pork barrel spending.
|
| Neither of the two parties have (recently) proposed plans
| for balancing the budget.
|
| Neither of the two parties plans to significantly cut
| defense spending.
|
| The two parties both favor taxpayer-funded foreign aid.
|
| The two parties are largely backed by the same corporate
| sponsors and special interest groups, with a few key
| differences.
|
| The two parties both backed TARP and in general favor
| bailing out companies too big to fail.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on their
| general support of "economic stimulus" as a tool to prop up
| the economy.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on their
| support for and allegiance to Israel.
|
| The two parties both favor and continue sanctions on Iran.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of
| super PAC funding and their support of unlimited spending
| from corporations and special interest groups.
|
| The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of
| gerrymandering to gain political advantage.
|
| The two parties oppose any measures that would strengthen
| the viability of a third party.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| emergent behavior from a self-interested system, which
| doesn't necessarily preclude collusion, directly or less
| so.
|
| the best capitalist simply had their competition shot.
| pakyr wrote:
| > The two parties do not significantly differ on their
| use of earmarks and pork barrel spending.
|
| This is not true; the Republicans strongly oppose them
| and have repeatedly tried to abolish them (and were
| temporarily successful at one point).
|
| > Neither of the two parties have (recently) proposed
| plans for balancing the budget.
|
| This isn't true. Both parties have recently proposed
| plans for balancing the budget; Biden proposed plans to
| balance it by raising taxes and instituting a wealth tax
| just last year, and Republicans have put forward various
| entitlement reform proposals to balance the budget.
|
| > The two parties both favor and continue sanctions on
| Iran.
|
| Obama ended sanctions on Iran with the nuclear deal
| before Trump reinstated them; Republicans blocked Senate
| ratification of the deal, allowing him to do that and
| ensuring the Iranians wouldn't trust future entreaties
| from the US. Claiming the two parties are the same on
| this is odd.
|
| > The two parties do not significantly differ on their
| use of super PAC funding and their support of unlimited
| spending from corporations and special interest groups.
|
| Dems support and have repeatedly attempted to pass an
| anti-Citizens United amendment.
|
| > The two parties do not significantly differ on their
| use of gerrymandering to gain political advantage.
|
| Dems repeatedly tried to pass a bill banning
| gerrymandering federally when they controlled the House
| in 2021.
|
| I'm no expert but for these 5 at least, I am aware of
| significant and specific interparty differences.
| golergka wrote:
| Many of these points are just common sense. Does America
| really need a major party that's insane on one of the
| important issues?
| avianlyric wrote:
| Minor correction
|
| > D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning
| parties
|
| D in US is more right than other countries' _right_ leaning
| parties
| SSJPython wrote:
| > D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning
| parties
|
| I don't think this is accurate. Maybe on healthcare and
| welfare, sure. But on many social issues, the Democrats are
| much further to the left than the European left. On issues
| such as abortion, gender/sexuality, migration, and race, the
| Democrats are more extreme compared to Labour in the UK, SPD
| in Germany, and the PSOE in Spain. Even the left in France
| isn't as socially extremist as the Democrats.
| Larrikin wrote:
| It's a boring take from more than 30 years ago that was
| kinda true in the Regan years when the dominant voting
| groups could pretend that elected officials and government
| didn't actually matter because they all voted similarly and
| discrimination against groups that disagreed had been
| publicly accepted for decades. Historical electoral maps
| were not usually competitive at all like they are now.
|
| The both parties are the same is such a lazy take, except
| in super limited circumstances like this naked power grab
| in the article. Both are going to use it in wildly
| different ways
| mamonster wrote:
| >Even the left in France isn't as socially extremist as the
| Democrats.
|
| Depends which left which you are talking about. LFI is
| certainly on that level in their way, PS/Place Publique are
| not(given that "printemps republicain" was part of what
| killed popular support for the party).
| monocasa wrote:
| I mean, those countries have other further left parties
| with held seats in their legislatures up to and including
| outright explicit communist parties.
|
| Those parties you listed are known for being center to
| center left in Europe, sometimes explicitly escuing the
| left as UK Labour and SPD have done.
|
| Excpet PSOE which is farther left than the Democrats,
| having all of the identity politics of the Democratic party
| while being explicitly and empathetically pro union. Heads
| would have rolled if PSOE had broken the rail workers
| strike that like Biden did. The also tried to legalize
| abortion in the Spanish constitution in the 1970s, and
| haven't wavered on their view of abortion since. They
| passed same sex marriage when they got their first chance
| to (and before the US did), and used the same opportunity
| to expand transgender rights.
| dukeyukey wrote:
| Left and right are different in different countries. In the
| US, the Republicans are generally pro-building (see where new
| homes and factories are being built). But in the UK, the left
| party (Labour) is the one pushing for less onerous planning.
| hamhock666 wrote:
| Because it gives them more power, and nobody cares to organize
| or do anything about it in terms of voting out said
| politicians.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| They're ultimately the same, the partisanship is mostly a farce
| as they both know that they're the only realistic options, so
| as long as neither side goes out of its way to seriously be
| better than the other, they can both enjoy the perks of being
| in power eventually, and therefore increased power is always
| good from their pov as regardless of party, they'll eventually
| have access to that power too.
| coolbreezetft24 wrote:
| > the partisanship is mostly a farce
|
| This was noticeably on display for me in 2020 right after it
| was determined that Biden had won the election. Lindsey
| Graham, a Republican Senator, was caught on video in the
| Senate chamber warmly congratulating and hugging Kamala
| Harris, a D senator and VP-elect. It was as if they both knew
| Graham's hyper-partisan antics during the preceding months
| before the vote was all just an act - a part of the game. I'd
| bet that he secretly voted for Biden/Harris as well and will
| do so again.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| I would imagine because the IC already uses those same
| surveillance powers to get dirt on enough politicians to make
| sure this happens.
| stufffer wrote:
| They had to add a rule about not using it to spy on Congress.
| That tells you all you need to know about how often fisa is
| abused.
| kbolino wrote:
| The bureaucrats regularly present scary information to the
| politicians to justify their actions and powers. The juiciest
| bits of intelligence are intentionally selected for escalation
| up the chain, with many being presented ASAP at the highest
| levels (SECDEF, President) and/or retained for later
| demonstration to oversight authorities (FISA court,
| Congressional committees). While much of "raw" intelligence is
| not reliable, the agencies can curate the best (most
| believable/most sensational/most verified) intelligence reports
| over time.
|
| Given recent events in the Middle East and the fact that both
| parties' senior politicians _mostly_ lean the same way in terms
| of which sides they support, this result is unsurprising if
| disappointing.
| Tarq0n wrote:
| I suspect in the incentives, the downside risk weighs much
| heavier for these people. If they block surveillance powers and
| another 9/11 happened they'd be dragged over the coals, whereas
| approving them is pretty risk free.
| api wrote:
| If anything happens any politician who voted no can be accused
| of being responsible for "missing the next 9/11" or being "soft
| on terror."
|
| If nothing happens most people don't understand or care either
| way.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| Because politicians want power and control over the citizens.
| They might use it for different things, but power is power.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I'm pretty damn sure you have it backwards. The intelligence
| crapmunity wants power, and politicians are merely the means
| to an end.
|
| See what happens when a politician of any stature dares to
| defy them.
| memish wrote:
| "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they
| have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Schumer told
| MSNBC's Rachel Maddow
|
| https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-t...
| ipaddr wrote:
| The only person willing to take them on is Trump. Look at all
| of the fake cases and mainstream media attacking that
| followed. I don't think anyone can stop them now. When
| America is replaced as a world power that day will come.
| tophi wrote:
| You sound as sane as the guy that self immolated yesterday.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| If that were true, Trump would have been carried out of
| Helsinki feet-first.
| pas wrote:
| why, what was/happened in Helsinki?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Trump announced that he believed Putin over his own
| intelligence.
|
| But then there was the time Biden installed Hunter on the
| White House staff and ordered that he be given a security
| clearance, despite dozens of discrepancies, undisclosed
| foreign contacts, and other red flags on the paperwork.
| Oh, wait, no, that was Trump, too.
| verdverm wrote:
| I think you have things a bit backwards. Without FISA, the
| intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer
| restrictions.
|
| > The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate
| Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence
| activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam
| Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President
| Richard Nixon's usage of federal resources, including law
| enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
| hypothesis wrote:
| > Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight
| and fewer restrictions.
|
| What restrictions are you talking about? Constitutional
| warrant requirement was sidestepped using this law and you
| are still cheering here.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Well, before FISA, constitutional warrant requirements were
| not _sidestepped_ , they were simply _ignored_. So now we
| 're acknowledging that the constitutional requirements are
| still there, but now we use this weird dodge to get around
| it. So is that better or worse?
| hypothesis wrote:
| Are you really asking if being unconstitutional is worse
| than being codified and legal?
|
| I'm not the one here cheering for demise of
| constitutional republic...
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Neither am I cheering for it. Don't put words in my
| mouth.
|
| I am seriously asking whether being flat-out
| unconstitutional is worse than building a (legislated and
| approved) backdoor around the constitution, yes.
|
| I mean, better than both would be to just _follow the
| constitution_ , but that wasn't the question.
| hypothesis wrote:
| Please note that at no point I said that you specifically
| cheered, so no need to project. It's a threaded topic.
|
| As you noticed, following constitution is apparently not
| an option here. Being unconstitutional and ignored, there
| was at least some hope for improvement, but codification
| gave us a clear answer that elected representatives are,
| at best, only selectively interested in supporting
| constitution.
| araes wrote:
| Unfortunately, that appears to be America these days. Do
| something illegal, and then write a law to legalize the
| illegal behavior.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Corruption of our intelligence agencies to the point they've
| been weaponized against our own elected officials.
| ComposedPattern wrote:
| I would guess that Democratic and Republican politicians want
| to give more power to the USA government because they _are_ the
| USA government.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| The F in FISA stands for _foreign_.
| ofslidingfeet wrote:
| Once upon a time, this would have been the only thing the
| internet talked about today. Top of reddit, thousands of comments
| on news articles, etc.
|
| Now we get suppression and astroturfing from a bunch of autocrats
| who despise democracy and call themselves the "Intelligence
| Community."
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Since it expired at midnight and reauthorization passed after
| midnight, was there a period where the government acted illegally
| in continuing surveillance? How does that work?
| Brybry wrote:
| Legally there wasn't a need to rush, the FISA court had
| certified the process until 2025. [1]
|
| But probably companies could have stopped cooperating and
| challenged it in court.
|
| [1] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-
| urges...
| njarboe wrote:
| Here is a link to how the senators voted[1].
|
| [1]https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1..
| .
|
| Unfortunately both my senators voted for it. I did call their
| offices Thursday to no avail.
| bwanab wrote:
| It's the first time I can ever remember on a contested vote
| where both the two Democratic Senators from my current bluer
| than blue state voted the same (nay) as the two Republican
| Senators from my former redder than red state. Strange
| bedfellows in interesting times.
| throwaway35777 wrote:
| {Montana, North Dakota} --> {Washington}?
| bilekas wrote:
| You don't see any value in FISA?
| hackernewds wrote:
| what change would a call affect?
| hellcow wrote:
| I'm really disappointed that even in CA (which is pushing for
| better privacy rights with CCPA), one of our senators voted for
| this.
| verdverm wrote:
| Are you aware the alternative is less oversight? FISA
| protects Americans
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla.
| ..
| geuis wrote:
| I obviously can't guess your age, but I'm gonna wager you
| weren't around much prior to 9/11. The world was getting on
| quite well without massive surveillance creep, and none of
| the stuff FISA has done in the last 23 years would have
| stopped it. The authorities already had all the info they
| needed back then and just didn't act on it.
| borkt wrote:
| FISA has been in existence since 1978. It did not prevent
| 9/11, so honestly your comment undersells how worthless
| the program has been in light of the constitutional
| freedoms we willingly cede in reauthorizing it. The fact
| is though it remains law and the officials we elected
| feel the value is worth it. I hope its being done solely
| based on the benefits it provides us as a whole and is
| not being used for self-serving purposes
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| > used for self-serving purposes
|
| That is inevitable. If there is an easier path to a goal
| some human will use it. It doesn't matter if the goal is
| against the people.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Survei
| lla...
|
| 2008.
| Retric wrote:
| Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)
|
| https://bja.ojp.gov/program/it/privacy-civil-
| liberties/autho...
| unethical_ban wrote:
| And the components of the program being discussed are
| from the 2008 amendment.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| Even humanitarian groups such as the UNICEF were targets,
| there's no doubt now what the program is about
| AmVess wrote:
| These laws aren't about protecting America and its
| citizens, but rather as means to control them.
| mdhb wrote:
| People just toss comments like this around as though they
| were facts when in fact it's completely paranoid made up
| q-anon level nonsense.
|
| These laws work a very specific way and have very
| specific controls in place to prevent shit like you
| describe from happening which you could go and read up on
| if you wanted to but it's much easier to fear monger
| amongst one another because it plays to your ego that
| somebody who is important enough to be under surveillance
| by an intelligence agency.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| "Completely paranoid made up q-anon level nonsense" from
| the New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post,
| Associated Press, and many others? I think not.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/world/middleeast/book-
| rev...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/gchq-
| targete...
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
| switch/wp/2013/08/24...
|
| https://apnews.com/article/b25197d5b11740b2b29681bbc521a4
| 5f
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/fbi-misused-
| fore...
| xanthor wrote:
| https://apnews.com/article/fisa-foreign-surveillance-
| fbi-3f7...
|
| One does not have to be "important enough" if they are
| conducting mass surveillance and storing it in a database
| indefinitely.
| somenameforme wrote:
| You could easily look at things like the Snowden leaks to
| see how well such controls end up working out. My
| favorite was NSA agents collecting and sharing sexual
| content. [1] The reason that's my favorite is not because
| it's the most extreme example of abuse - it's not, not by
| a longshot. The reason is that it really demonstrates
| that 'government' isn't some abstract or holistic entity.
| It's just a group of people, like you and I -- with the
| exact same vices, egos, weaknesses, and so on.
|
| And of course this applies not only to the NSA spooks,
| but all the way up. You shouldn't be any more comfortable
| letting 'the government' spy on you, than you would be
| letting me spy on you. If you want another example along
| the same lines, spooks spying on their love interests is
| so common that there's a slang term for it - LOVEINT [2].
| Basically, don't grant people power over other people
| unless it's really just completely and absolutely
| necessary, because it _will_ be abused. So the benefit
| needs to substantially outweigh the inevitable abuses.
| And in this case, that obviously doesn 't hold.
|
| [1] -
| https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/us/politics/edward-
| snowde...
|
| [2] - https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/loveint-how-
| nsa-spies-s...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It's a secret court making secret law. This is, by
| definition, both unaccountable and impossible to conclude
| is not being used to cover up massive abuse, because
| whatever is happening is being concealed from the voters.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| Agree with the sentiment, but spying capabilities have
| been abused before FISA, just ask Martin Luther King Jr.
| So I don't think things were particularly fine before
| 9/11 either. It's just that technological advancements
| have made abuse on a mass scale possible for the first
| time in human history. AFAICT surveillance used to be
| much more targeted and labor intensive. That all changed
| after 9/11.
| e40 wrote:
| I didn't downvote you, btw (I upvoted you). I think MLK
| Jr's problems with the government weren't traditional
| spying, they were more harassment of government employees
| acting on their own because they were bigots. The
| organized government actions that did happen, IIRC, were
| in places were the local government was highly corrupt
| and infiltrated by the KKK.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| "Apart from the widespread abuse of government power,
| there was no abuse."
| verdverm wrote:
| I watched 9/11 live from my dorm
|
| Maybe don't jump to biases so fast, people within all age
| groups have different opinions about the same topics.
|
| HN is very opinionated on surveillance, as the comments
| on this story reinforce
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| What do you mean by opinionated on surveillance? When did
| the Constitution become an opinion?
| geuis wrote:
| Doesn't really matter, but I was 21 when it happened. I
| suspect we're basically the same age.
| mise_en_place wrote:
| The alternative is requiring a warrant, which means
| following the Constitution. Due process doesn't disappear
| because you want it to. Even if someone is supposedly a
| terrorist or criminal.
| twoodfin wrote:
| If you're hoping the Supreme Court, and in particular
| this Supreme Court, is going to agree that the
| Constitution requires the executive branch get a warrant
| before spying on cross-border communication with a non-
| citizen, you're going to be disappointed.
|
| FISA is Congress exercising the only authority it has
| here, which is oversight & regulation. You could argue
| FISA should be stricter, but it can't extend the
| Constitutional reach of the Fourth Amendment, nor can it
| contract it the way many in this thread believe it's
| somehow doing.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| It's baffling to many people how FISA is even a thing. To
| a layperson, the Fourth Amendment leaves no room for a
| rubber stamp court authorizing mass surveillance. And no
| one except politicians and bureaucrats are buying the
| argument that this is somehow targeted surveillance.
|
| Also, free nations should have higher standards than "Not
| a citizen? Too bad, anything goes."
| twoodfin wrote:
| This is not complicated: If you run a telegraph wire
| between El Paso and Juarez, the executive has the
| Constitutional authority to tap it to intercept
| communication to or from a non-citizen not in the United
| States, warrant-free.
|
| Congress can regulate the process that must be followed,
| the documentation that must be made, even require
| judicial review at the program level to ensure it doesn't
| also record traffic that _is_ Constitutionally protected.
| That's what FISA is.
|
| But it can't _ban_ that tapping, nor can it require the
| executive to get a warrant for a particular otherwise
| Constitutional intercept from an Article 3 court.
|
| Which part of this do you think is incorrect?
| soraminazuki wrote:
| Where do I even start? Let's first reiterate that even
| when it's technically legal to screw over non-citizens,
| it doesn't make it right. That's not the standard
| expected of a free nation.
|
| But let's ignore that for a moment and move on to the
| next point. Your example is still hoovering up
| communications from citizens who are supposed to be
| protected by due process of law. En masse. How does this
| not run afoul of the law?
|
| The problem is compounded by the fact that the internet
| blurs geographical borders. Wholly domestic
| communications can and does end up crossing borders.
| Also, I'd bet a large part of our communications aren't
| even between people. The majority of the traffic likely
| are sent to or from computer programs. They happen
| without most people even realizing it, but contains
| highly personal information. The simple telegraph analogy
| doesn't translate well to the internet.
|
| What's more, there's currently no meaningful system in
| place to prevent abuse. And no, a rubber stamp court
| authorizing dragnet surveillance isn't it.
| twoodfin wrote:
| OK, you want FISA to be stricter. But way up thread,
| someone made the point that it's FISA itself that puts
| any meaningful balancing constraints at all on the
| Constitutional power of the executive. This includes the
| FISA court--made up of real, lifetime-tenured federal
| judges of the same robes you would like approving
| warrants--that is there by law to be watching out for
| just your parade of horribles.
|
| The poster was roundly criticized for being correct.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| No, FISA should not be a thing. Wiretap warrants should
| be reasonably scoped and acquired on an individual basis.
| There shouldn't be a secret court issuing do-whatever-
| you-want warrants.
| twoodfin wrote:
| To get that you have two choices: Do your best to
| persuade your fellow citizens to elect a President who
| will choose to forego this part of his Constitutional
| powers--or get a Constitutional amendment passed.
|
| What I keep trying to explain is that this FISA vote
| can't address your concerns one way or the other. If you
| disagree, I wish you'd explain how.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| The Constitution grants the president unlimited spying
| powers? That's news to me.
|
| Whether the FISA vote can fix all the problems isn't the
| point. The problem is that current surveillance practices
| looks illegal to begin with.
| twoodfin wrote:
| Intercepting communications between US persons and
| foreign non-citizens isn't "unlimited spying powers" and
| is not illegal.
|
| Do you disagree?
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I don't understand the argument that it couldn't require
| a warrant. The argument is simply that the executive
| branch has a constitutional right to wiretap without a
| warrant, unless the the constitution forbids it?
|
| There is _some_ judicial oversight in the FISA court of
| course. What 's the argument for why congress can
| legislate that, but not a more typical warrant?
| twoodfin wrote:
| For the same reason Congress can't require the President
| to get the approval of the Supreme Court before he vetoes
| a bill: Our Constitution gives powers to the executive
| that cannot be usurped or overruled by Congress, notably
| in this context to conduct the national defense and
| foreign affairs.
|
| The FISA court exists to ensure that the executive is not
| operating outside his Constitutional authority, not as a
| gatekeeper for use of that authority at all in any
| instance.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Our Constitution gives powers to the executive that
| cannot be usurped or overruled by Congress, notably in
| this context to conduct the national defense and foreign
| affairs.
|
| This is not true. The constitution explicitly reserves
| the power to declare war or enact treaties to Congress.
| Neither the military nor federal law enforcement can
| spend a single dime, or even exist, without Congressional
| approval. If the budget allocates no money to mass
| surveillance, no money is available to conduct mass
| surveillance.
| twoodfin wrote:
| Yes, Congress can defund the FBI, NSA, DIA, ... or simply
| forbid them from spending money on foreign surveillance.
|
| What they can't do is _allow_ them to spend money on
| foreign surveillance, but only if an Article 3 court
| gives them a warrant.
| Kamq wrote:
| > This is not complicated: If you run a telegraph wire
| between El Paso and Juarez, the executive has the
| Constitutional authority to tap it to intercept
| communication to or from a non-citizen not in the United
| States, warrant-free.
|
| That's not correct at all. It would only fall under
| federal overview if it's commercial (Article 1 section 8
| clause 3 of the constitution gives congress the right to
| regulate commerce with foreign nations).
|
| The Feds don't just get to do anything they want by
| default. All powers that aren't specifically given to the
| feds are defaulted to either the states or the people.
| twoodfin wrote:
| This is, flatly, nonsense. For example: Executive
| agencies conduct warrantless border searches unrelated to
| commerce around the clock.
| Kamq wrote:
| It's dumb, but Wickard v. Filburn makes basically
| anything involving physical goods "commerce". I'm sure
| there's a ruling somewhere that says something like:
| people entering the country subtly alter the restaurant
| market (not really any dumber than the Wickard v. Filburn
| rationale), and therefore the feds have a right to search
| everything.
|
| I think it would be a lot harder to do that with speech
| though. Maybe you could argue that the telegraph line
| itself impacts international copper markets or something,
| but there are non-tangible based communication methods.
| 13of40 wrote:
| Not to nitpick too hard here, but you can't know whether
| I'm talking to a US citizen without first eavesdropping
| on the conversation.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| That's actually a great point. After the Snowden
| revelations, politicians justified some of the
| surveillance programs by claiming they were only looking
| at the metadata, not the content, as if that made any
| difference. So that's one of the excuses they use to
| create the appearance of legality.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2013/06/21/193578367/calling-it-
| metadata...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > You could argue FISA should be stricter, but it can't
| extend the Constitutional reach of the Fourth Amendment,
| nor can it contract it the way many in this thread
| believe it's somehow doing.
|
| Congress can't pass a law violating the Fourth Amendment.
| They can certainly pass a law constraining the executive
| from doing something that is otherwise constitutional, if
| the courts are reading the Fourth Amendment too narrowly.
|
| They could also straightforwardly require the FISA court
| to publish its opinions, or have the same cases heard in
| ordinary federal courts with public accountability for
| the decisions. There is nothing in the constitution
| requiring secret courts.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > Are you aware the alternative is less oversight?
|
| Yes, I am. That is in fact what I want.
|
| > FISA protects Americans
|
| No, it does not. At this time, the greatest threat to me
| (and other Americans) is in fact the glowies who want to
| use this sort of law to violate our civil liberties.
| serf wrote:
| I can't down vote you harder. FISA hurts Americans by short
| circuiting any kind of protections citizens once had for
| due process.
|
| We were fine before, and arguably it would've done little
| to change the events that caused the reaction that allowed
| it to be established in the first place.
| randcraw wrote:
| I used to work for several of the US intel agencies. I can
| say with great confidence that we never have acted
| gainfully on preventing a major event using intel and we
| never will. The catalyst for acting boldly to prevent or
| defend a major event is much mor political than
| informational. No intel will ever play a big role in
| deciding whether a country lives or dies.
|
| But we most certainly WILL abuse individual civil rights my
| abusing that intel. THAT has been confirmed in history
| again and again.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > The catalyst for acting boldly to prevent or defend a
| major event is much mor political than informational.
|
| Could you explain what you mean by this? On a tangential
| note, have you considered talking/explaining this with
| politicians/academics studying this field? Or is it more
| of something that's already known to those familiar with
| the field?
| reaperman wrote:
| We also had drug trafficking when the US constitution was
| originally written[0], and the founders of the US still
| gave us a constitutional right to warrants for searches
| relating to it. I don't understand why sealed warrants
| aren't "good enough" for this purpose, perhaps you could
| open my mind a bit. Why do we need "warrantless"
| surveillance for drug trafficking now? Specifically, what's
| wrong with getting a sealed (secret for a period of time)
| warrant for surveillance from a normal court?
|
| > In 1800, the British Levant Company purchases nearly half
| of all of the opium coming out of Smyrna, Turkey strictly
| for importation to Europe and the United States.
|
| 0: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/et
| c/hi...
| bennyhill wrote:
| I assume any congress person who voted for surveillance has a
| horrible kink and received photos of it shortly before the
| vote.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| That reminds me of Wellington's response under similar
| circumstances.
|
| A former lover tried to blackmail Wellington. His response
| was 'Publish and be damned.' It was published to the
| delight of many. But he still went on to become Prime
| Minister.
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rear-window-when-
| wellin...
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Reminds me of when the KGB and the CIA tried to use
| knowledge of the sexual exploits of Indonesia's president
| Sukarno to blackmail him. Instead of falling in line, he
| told them to release what they had so his countrymen
| could be impressed by his sexual prowess. The KGB went as
| far as having a group of their agents pose as flight
| attendants to engage him in an orgy, which they secretly
| filmed. When confronted with the film, he asked if KGB
| for extra copies for him to take home.
| rightbyte wrote:
| So 55 needed for passing and 60 voted for. Closer then I
| thought it would be.
| karaterobot wrote:
| People generally vote for the incumbent if they happen to claim
| the same party affiliation. They complain for 4-6 years, then
| when it comes to what box they tick on the ballot, all of that
| is out the window. The lure of an incumbent is that they might
| have acquired enough markers and enough seats on various
| committees to help the state, when it often seems the reality
| is that they've probably just acquired more lobbyist friends
| and more incentive to stay in office no matter what. Sure, they
| may be corrupt and incompetent, but they've got so much
| influence!
| Onawa wrote:
| The joys of the "first past the post" election system. Take
| your choice of a shit sandwich, or a shit sandwich with
| pickles. Heaven forbid we actually update our voting system
| to break up the inevitable 2-party outcome.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Heaven might not forbid, but the two ruling parties
| certainly do. Breaking out of the status quo would crush
| their cartel, end their monopoly. They don't want to do
| that. The cycle continues.
| sunshine_reggae wrote:
| Do these people know who you are?!
| superkuh wrote:
| It terrible it passed but I'm glad both Wisconsin senators
| voted no. They voted no for _completely_ different reasons but
| I 'll take it.
| calibas wrote:
| So if I communicate with a non-US citizen, I effectively forfeit
| my right to privacy? Am I understand this correctly?
| v7n wrote:
| Forfeiting sounds intentional. How would you know the
| nationality of all participants in a conversation?
| Barracoon wrote:
| Technically, it's if you communicate to a target of a foreign
| intelligence investigation AND they deem you suspect enough to
| request FISA approval to access your side of the communication.
| fifteen1506 wrote:
| network American (tm)
| jedberg wrote:
| What's most interesting is that this wasn't on party lines. The
| yes/no mix is very mixed party-wise.
|
| https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
| hammock wrote:
| Agreed that's interesting. Really makes you think about all
| these crackpots talking about a uniparty, deep state vs the
| people, etc
| stanford_labrat wrote:
| Because in reality the two party system is not accurate. It's
| rich versus poor, those with power versus those without.
| Nobility versus peasants. That's just how it works.
| Gud wrote:
| That's how it works in the USA, not necessarily how it
| works. Other forms of governing exists.
|
| A big step forward for the USA would be a vast reduction of
| federal power over the states.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Other countries don't institutionalize the two-party
| system by law. Because it would be insane and
| antidemocratic to create a complicated network of laws
| that would have to be eliminated state by state in order
| to ordain that an entire country must be ruled by two
| intimately-linked private clubs in turn.
| cryptonector wrote:
| The two-party system isn't so heavily institutionalized
| "by law". The law generally gives advantages to parties
| that pull in more than x% of the vote, and it so happens
| that the first-past-the-post system of electing
| representatives makes it very difficult for a third party
| to take root.
| sapphicsnail wrote:
| How would that help? Political parties operate in states.
| States are banning books and outlawing abortions too.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| States are not printing billions of dollars and shipping
| it overseas or wholesale spying on their populace for the
| purpose of political manipulation.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I do not find it surprising that groups of people with many
| overlapping viewpoints do not have overlapping viewpoints
| 100% of the time. If anything, I find it surprising that they
| overlap so frequently.
|
| Furthermore, I think the frequency of that overlap is a major
| problem for our political system, because it makes compromise
| impossible.
| nyokodo wrote:
| > crackpots talking about a uniparty, deep state vs the
| people, etc
|
| It's not controversial to suggest that the interests of the
| political class, the special interests that fund their
| campaigns, and Washington bureaucrats differ from the
| interests of the public at large. You don't need to evoke
| deep state conspiracies to explain nefarious coordination
| because when career and monetary incentives align then bills
| like this one get passed.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| Yep, this trend of dismissing undemocratic power structures
| as conspiracy theories is deeply troubling. Important
| issues such as surveillance, censorship, and the military-
| industrial complex have a long history and are extensively
| documented. Yet it's hard to bring these issues up today
| without being labeled a far right conspiracist.
|
| It wasn't always like this. Many have agreed these were
| legitimate issues during the Iraq war. Where have all those
| people gone today?
| squigz wrote:
| > Yet it's hard to bring these issues up today without
| being labeled a far right conspiracist.
|
| This really isn't all that true in my experience. And, I
| mean, look at the discussion here... Maybe consider the
| people you hang around with?
| Zancarius wrote:
| It's definitely who you hang around with, but I think how
| the conversation is approached also dictates outcome.
| Talk about a political ruling class with most people, and
| they'll look at you as though you grew a third eyeball.
| Talk about the Dems and Repubs being out of touch with
| the average person due to the insulative effect of DC,
| and they'll usually agree.
|
| You can generally convey the same idea gently as long as
| you hedge your phrasing somewhat. Making it sound like a
| wacky accusation comes off sounding, well, wacky.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Really makes you think about whether there are some things
| that can still transcend partisan showmanship, like national
| security.
|
| I still am a believer in digital freedom, I'm old enough to
| have seen the changes in the Internet, and it is a much more
| malevolent and fucked up force than it was even 15 years ago.
| Maybe, just maybe, the government needs the power to spy on
| international targets with oversight.
| pessimizer wrote:
| The parties only have "disputes" on a short list of wedge
| issues, and either side winning on those removes the that issue
| as a cudgel that can motivate their base.
|
| If you look at their donors, you'll see the lines. The people
| who voted for it make money from the defense and intelligence
| industries, and the people who didn't, don't. Voting for for
| something majorities of the voters of both parties are against
| is expensive (in terms of being re-elected.) That price is paid
| by donors, and the media control that those donors will
| exercise. Which again, is why the wedge issues are needed:
| you're going to have to vote for those people who voted against
| your civil liberties if you want Democrats to pretend to
| protect abortion rights for another 4 years, or Republicans to
| pretend to end them.
| letsSpy wrote:
| In other words, both parties are out there to screw you. We
| need a different voting system that would allow a third and
| fourth party to "exist". Like ranked-choice voting, maybe. Or
| maybe just get rid or parties and let them all be independent.
|
| Did Biden already sign it?
| alexpotato wrote:
| A couple years ago I stumbled upon this YouTube video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz27n1tNNMg
|
| The summary is this:
|
| - Votes in the House and Senate used to be anonymous
|
| - They then decided to make them public under the reasoning of
| transparency
|
| - One side effect of making them public is that you got people
| like Grover Norquist and The Americans for Tax Reform who could
| see who voted for taxes and then use that to "name and shame"
| people (there was a pledge signing in there as well). For more
| details see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
|
| - This now means that it's MUCH easier for lobbyists and
| special interest groups to see where to spend their money as a
| Senator's voting history is public knowledge (which both sides
| are WELL aware of)
|
| - As a sibling poster points out: you can easily see who
| receives money from defense groups vs not.
|
| - This is probably good for us as voters in the short term but
| bad for the country in the long term (Due to the above)
| idiotsecant wrote:
| I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Lobbyists and
| special interests already knew how politicians voted, they
| just knew via old fashioned grapevine methods. There was an
| information asymmetry between well connected lobbyists and
| average people. The fact that no longer exists is a good
| thing, in the long and short term.
| lumb63 wrote:
| What's most interesting is this is incredibly unpopular amongst
| voters of both parties.
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| Democracy baby! /s
| Buttons840 wrote:
| People who get elected are not like regular people. Until we
| fill at least one branch of government with randomly selected
| people, we don't have a democracy.
| ein0p wrote:
| Only one thing can make these people work past midnight: abusing
| the American public. "Representation", my ass. None of them
| represents me or anyone I know.
| Zancarius wrote:
| Agreed, but the cynical side of me thinks that they _are_
| representing their constituents. It 's just that neither you
| nor me are their constituents. They pay lip service only during
| an election year.
|
| I'm politically very conservative. I hate every single one of
| the Republicans. They claim to want smaller government and less
| intrusion and then vote for... bigger government, more
| intrusion, and endless wars.
|
| I still vote, though. Mostly, at this point, it feels like an
| act of protest more than anything.
| ein0p wrote:
| I struggle to nail down my political affiliation because
| there's literally just one party. They quibble over
| materially irrelevant hot button issues to create the
| illusion of choice, but all the bullshit that robs me and my
| kids or strips us of our rights is _always_ "bipartisan",
| passed without reading in the dead of the night. And yeah the
| only two choices in our upcoming "elections" here are a guy
| with profound dementia who shakes hands with invisible
| people, and a narcissist moron con man who writes at a fourth
| grade level and capitalizes nouns for no reason. And neither
| side considers this to be a problem. I'm beginning to think
| this is some kind of a joke and the ruling class is just
| trying to see how far they can take it before people revolt.
| thejazzman wrote:
| "pro life" is a pretty hard (and exploitive) line
| separating the two
| ein0p wrote:
| Keep paying attention to that while they borrow $2T a
| year and give it to their friends.
| xyst wrote:
| This was going to pass regardless of the outcry. The unnecessary
| drama of stalling until after midnight is all theater.
|
| We need a significant change in leadership for all those that
| voted this in.
|
| If I recall correctly, this bill also includes an expansion of
| surveillance performed by federal law enforcement agencies and
| NSA.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _This was going to pass regardless of the outcry_
|
| There was a real moment in the House where it might not have,
| at least without a warrant requirement. My Congresswoman was
| one of the attack dogs on this issue. She thought they would
| get an outpouring of support. She didn't. The call sheets
| registered basically zero calls in support, and several
| lobbying against. So she caved. (This is a pattern I saw play
| out in New York years earlier in another privacy battle.)
|
| > _The unnecessary drama of stalling until after midnight is
| all theater_
|
| Sort of. The Senate calendar is funky. Putting it at the end of
| the roll was theatre. Having _something_ voted on after
| midnight was not.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > There was a real moment in the House where it might not
| have, at least without a warrant requirement. My
| Congresswoman was one of the attack dogs on this issue. She
| thought they would get an outpouring of support. She didn't.
| The call sheets registered basically zero calls in support,
| and several lobbying against. So she caved. (This is a
| pattern I saw play out in New York years earlier in another
| privacy battle.)
|
| What's odd/interesting to me is that there's been little
| chatter of late regarding this. I spend an unhealthy amount
| of time on HN/Reddit/X and save for a few mild posts (as
| opposed to alarmist or clickbaity) on the topic, I barely see
| anything. During the net neutrality thing back when Ajit Pai
| was around I remember there was massive support. And I don't
| think I've ever heard of the NY privacy thing you mention. I
| wonder why it's so.
| srj wrote:
| I find you can get a good idea of what's going on from reading
| between the lines of Wyden's statements. As a member of the
| intelligence committee he cannot directly disclose the
| operational details, but you can look at where he's concerned.
|
| From the CNN article on this:
|
| >> Another amendment at issue was from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden
| of Oregon, a member of the Intelligence Committee. His amendment,
| which was co-sponsored by several of the most liberal Democrats
| and conservative Republicans in the chamber, would strike a new
| part of the program that he argued would lead every day Americans
| into helping the government spy if they have "access to equipment
| that is being or may be used to transmit or store wire or
| electronic communications."
|
| On the face of it, any cellphone or smartwatch seems to fit that
| definition. They could be converting everything into a listening
| device, recording all of it, and then making it available to
| intel officers only when they query for it and can argue one
| party is a foreign national.
| hangsi wrote:
| "Beautiful. Unethical. Dangerous."
|
| So says Morgan Freeman's character Lucius Fox in 2008 in The
| Dark Knight[0].
|
| The rest of the tech imagined in that scene is plausible today
| too, considering the density of WiFi/5G and research
| demonstrating the potential for its use as passive radar [1].
| That paper metions a cooperative base station, but I am
| wondering if there is any value gained in knowing exactly what
| the traffic is (such as some of the intelligence community
| does) in modelling how the waves propagate and performing an
| even more passive observation.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRELLH86Edo
|
| [1] Samczynski et al. 2021
| https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=966...
| araes wrote:
| Other info: This reauthorization of FISA includes the Turner-
| Himes amendment introduced by Reps. Mike Turner (R-OH) and Jim
| Himes (D-CT). (introduced House, passed Senate)
|
| The Turner-Himes amendment expands the definition of "electronic
| communications service (ECS) provider" to include "any service
| provider" that has "access to equipment that is being or may be
| used to transmit or store wire or electronic communications."
| (except not personal dwellings and restaurants)
|
| Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) comment: "It allows the government to force
| any American who installs, maintains, or repairs anything that
| transmits or stores communications to spy on the government's
| behalf. That means anyone with access to a server, a wire, a
| cable box, a wifi router, or a phone. It would be secret: the
| Americans receiving the government directives would be bound to
| silence, and there would be no court oversight."
|
| EFF comment: "The Justice Department is playing word games when
| it says the amendment doesn't change the 'structure' of 702
| because the law prohibits targeting entities inside the United
| States. Garland's pledge, isn't worth the paper it's printed on;
| if this amendment becomes law, the DOJ can and almost certainly
| will rely on it to conscript other providers who fit within its
| very broad scope."
|
| Notably, Trump doesn't like FISA? (removed yelly caps) "Kill
| FISA, it was illegally used against me, and many others. They
| spied on my campaign!!!"
|
| Pelosi's speech was amusing: "I don't have the time right now,
| but if members want to know I'll tell you how we could have been
| saved from 9/11 if we didn't have to have the additional
| warrants."
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/18/24134196/senate-cloture-v...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/12/fisa-surveil...
| badrabbit wrote:
| This is FISA right? The target is foreign individuals and
| entities? It seems by default HN is against it, can someone
| articulate why?
|
| There are elected representatives of the people providing
| oversight and it seems to have strong bipartisan support. Is
| there a popular line of thought with tech people that is
| suggesting foreign surveillance isn't neccesary? Or should some
| provision of the law be updated to protect americans' data?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-20 23:00 UTC)