Momentum to rein in NSA spying 'may be unstoppable'

[bigtree]

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

______________________

The New York Times ?@nytimes 3h
Momentum Builds Against N.S.A. Surveillance http://nyti.ms/17Ojme3

WASHINGTON — The movement to crack down on government surveillance started with an odd couple from Michigan, Representatives Justin Amash, a young libertarian Republican known even to his friends as “chief wing nut,” and John Conyers Jr., an elder of the liberal left in his 25th House term.

But what began on the political fringes only a week ago has built a momentum that even critics say may be unstoppable, drawing support from Republican and Democratic leaders, attracting moderates in both parties and pulling in some of the most respected voices on national security in the House.

The rapidly shifting politics were reflected clearly in the House on Wednesday, when a plan to defund the National Security Agency’s telephone data collection program fell just seven votes short of passage. Now, after initially signaling that they were comfortable with the scope of the N.S.A.’s collection of Americans’ phone and Internet activities, but not their content, revealed last month by Edward J. Snowden, lawmakers are showing an increasing willingness to use legislation to curb those actions.

Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, have begun work on legislation in the House Judiciary Committee to significantly rein in N.S.A. telephone surveillance. Mr. Sensenbrenner said on Friday that he would have a bill ready when Congress returned from its August recess that would restrict phone surveillance to only those named as targets of a federal terrorism investigation, make significant changes to the secret court that oversees such programs and give businesses like Microsoft and Google permission to reveal their dealings before that court.

“There is a growing sense that things have really gone a-kilter here,” Ms. Lofgren said . . .


read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/us/politics/momentum-builds-against-nsa-surveillance.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

related:

Washington Post ?@washingtonpost 19m
With Snowden's NSA revelations, senator's (Wyden's) vague warnings have finally become clear http://wapo.st/18IB18d

[xchrom]

1. du rec.

[snappyturtle]

2. K&R

[Jackpine Radical]

3. But Snowden didn't reveal anything new.

Greenwald is a traitor.

We need surveillance to identify disloyal citizens.

They can't actually listen to the phone messages that they've recorded.

Snowden's girlfriend is a pole dancer.

Greenwald supported the invasion of Iraq.

It was all Bush's fault. Nothing bad has happened since January 2009.

Something about boxes in Snowden's garage.

Snowden was a coward to run away from indefinite detention.

…ummm, I know there's more; help me out here…

[snooper2]

7. The only thing I've seen new from Snowy is 117K targets

Nobody is recording your phone calls FYI


Some folks need a technology 101 workshop

[cascadiance]

35. NSA - "SSHHH!!! No one is *listening* to your phone calls. We don't talk about recording at all!"

[snooper2]

37. what do you do for a living?

[cascadiance]

39. Sorry... Forgot the sarcasm icon!

[blackspade]

10. No help needed...

Just make something up, it seems to work for the pro authoritarian crowd.

[bigtree]

14. Greenwald, Snowden

. . . invaluable catalysts for the present awakening activism against these arrogant and criminal breaches of privacy by the government. Both are inseparable from whatever history will be recorded of the fight to dislodge the government from their Bush era (now, Obama era) 9-11 hype-enabled snooping - integral to that history, I think.

Likewise, this administration's flailing against these whistleblowing types to protect and defend their own prerogative to snoop will provide the body of the script for the government's reaction during this time.

[NorthCarolina]

17. Good grief

[Catherina]

41. It's sarcasm lol. n/t

[WillyT]

26. LOL !!!

[villager]

28. Yes, many in the "Underground" are now to the right of Congress on this issue

Alas.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

29. Seeing the talking points listed out makes them seem somehow even more pathetic n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. You forgot a few

The boxes in the garage and pole dancer

And Snowden gave money to Ron Paul, and Greenwalk is a *libertarian* gasp, I know.

Of course the puppy eating has to be there for comedic effect.

[ljm2002]

49. Not only did he not reveal anything new...

...but since everyone already knew all of this stuff 6 years ago, the statute of limitations has run out. We can no longer complain or make changes. Too bad, so sad; but once something has been legal for 6 years or more, there's just nothing for it, it is permanent law and can never be discussed, amended or repealed. It's in the Constitution or something.

[Dustlawyer]

4. "Fell just 7 votes short..." They have divided up who's turn it is to make the unpopular vote

and who gets to come out against the NSA spying program. This is around to stay, either above or below ground, it's around to stay on some level!

[Coyotl]

5. Didn't sequestration already start the process? Fiscal pressure may be unstoppable too!

Can we afford this Bush Junta loyalist reward system in perpetuity, with benefits to the grave? Can't we just cashier them and hope they do something productive with the rest of their lives which somehow benefits society instead of leeching on those who do useful work?

[avaistheone1]

8. k&r

[Fumesucker]

6. Uh oh, someone wasn't paying attention and drank the brown koolaid

They'll just hide it better, nothing substantive will change.

[reusrename]

45. I think I agree.

I don't think trying to roll things backwards is a real strategy. It's just for show.

We cannot roll back society to a time where this technology didn't exist. It's like trying to avoid the nuclear arms debate by saying we can just not use them. There has to be more to the incentive. Like Mutually Assured Destruction. Once that disincentive is removed, and once the cost/benefit analysis shows that profits can be had by it, they will nuke us all. They don't even understand why it's wrong-headed.

We need something more than just some different hoops to have to jump through.

I'd like to see the whole business become open source.

[AllyCat]

9. Corrected. Thanks OPer. Amash. Used to follow him on FB.

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

That said, Amash makes me nuts by turns. He has some horrible stuff at times on his FB page, then does something like this which is completely reasonable.

Senselessbrenner? Really?

[Jackpine Radical]

12. That's one of my peeves too.

Along with "reticent" when they mean "reluctant," "fulsome" when they mean "full" or "complete," "epicenter" when they mean "center," and a bunch of other ones. The problem is that frequent instances of misuse tend to make the erroneous usages acceptable; the language turns to mush when enough people mangle it. It seems to have happened to all 3 of my examples.

[MineralMan]

11. More likely, security will simply be tightened

and we'll find out less. Snowden's revelations are really insignificant and incomplete, when it comes to what the NSA actually does. He thinks he found stuff. The reality is that almost everything that has been published that he gathered is common knowledge for anyone who has bothered to keep up.

It was all pretty much on Wikipedia long before Snowden got in touch with Greenwald. It came as a surprise to many people, but that doesn't mean it was new information.

The really interesting stuff, no doubt, has not been revealed, I'm sure. Nor will it be. Security practices have been tightened in the wake of Snowden's releases.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Sure, much of the information was there, and there were previous whistleblowers

with better credentials and better information, but for some reason it was the Snowden/Greenwald releases that set off the firestorm.

Kinda like Mendel & the laws of genetic inheritance. Nobody paid attention to him when he first wrote, and he wasn't rediscovered until others stumbled across the same phenomena.

[MineralMan]

53. Yes. I'm sure that's part of it.

[AllyCat]

19. If it was so insignificant, why is there such an uproar over him?

Is it just because the media caught it this time? Guess I'm not sure why the PTB care so much if this is all old info. If anything, the media seems to be toeing the PTB line on Snowden.

[HardTimes99]

22. Remember that in the weeks and months preceding the Snowden\Greenwald revelations, there

were stories about how this administration was spying on journalists (the AP wiretaps and the suveillance of Rosen). The media thus had its pump primed for Snowden's and Greenwald's revelations.

[MineralMan]

30. Yes, it was because the media finally became aware of it.

And, in the process, they did their usual job of reporting partial truths and obfuscation, leaving people to rely on others to interpret the information. The opinion writers picked and chose what they wanted to report, based on their goals.

The result: Few people even understand what was released by Snowden/Greenwald/Guardian, or what it actually means. Some people have tried to present the information without bias, but that has not worked, so flames all around are the result.

It's pretty much the same old story. From what I'm reading here, it's clear that the information, its impact, and what it means are being drastically misunderstood on all sides. I've tried, but I'm done with this story. I'll let it sort itself out, die down, and watch as the NSA continues to do the same stuff it has always done. Congress may write some restrictions, but those will also be based on very, very limited information about what the NSA is about, so they'll have no effect on what the agency actually does, day to day.

[Mojorabbit]

46. Yes, that is why the USA is trying so hard to get their hands on Snowden

Because he put out old information that everyone already knows.

[MineralMan]

47. Perhaps.

[Thinkingabout]

24. I would also think there would be more vetting to rule out the activist from being employed by NSA

or its contractors, would think they are already looking at their present employees to determine where the spies are. Much lying, and apparently they are still able to rein in believers with their lies. I still get the feeling it has never been about NSA but more like a cause in order to get more votes for libertarians. Won't happen with me.

[MineralMan]

33. There will be, along with a tightening down of access to even the

kind of low-level information Snowden released. So far, everything that has actually been made public is part of a series of briefing documents used to inform people like legislators, contractors, and others about some basic programs the NSA has in place. There is far more that is not in those documents, and won't be available to the public ever. The NSA requires secrecy to operate at all, and classified information that reveals actual operations and their scale will never see public view. If it did, the NSA could not do the job it is assigned to do, and that job has nothing with watching anyone but bad guys, frankly. Everything that doesn't directly impact the agency's mission is simply discarded as worthless.

[ljm2002]

50. Security is not just technological in nature...

...it is based on trust, because no matter what the security system is, it is implemented and enforced by human beings.

As an example, say I have a couple of bodyguards with me at all times. I pay them excellent salaries. Say they are real bad-asses, who are very effective and can protect me from all kinds of harm that may befall me. I'm pretty secure in my person, right?

Now say that one of those bodyguards finds out I was the very banker who screwed his mother out of her money and made her lose her home.

Am I still safe? Not really, because now I cannot trust one of the bodyguards. Now, they may not try to protect me at all -- or they may even actively try to harm me.

The point is, no matter what security system is in place, there is always the issue of trust.

Yes, you can make rules that it takes two people to access certain information, rather than just one. Then a breach will require a conspiracy rather than just one person deciding to reveal secrets. This makes a leak less likely but does not give 100% assurance. Nothing will ever give 100% assurance, because of the human factor.

If our government puts systems in place that make sense and that comport with our stated laws and with what the politicians are telling the populace, then there is less likelihood that someone will feel the need to blow the whistle -- there is no need, nothing to reveal in that case. Most people who are involved with these systems are sincere in their dedication to preserving our safety; they are not looking for reasons to cause trouble.

What we have is a burgeoning security state, that routinely lies to the populace, selling us platitudes about how righteous we are, how Constitutional they are, and how wonderful it all is. But they still have to hire smart people to run their security apparatus. And smart people can see the disconnect, and are more likely to become whistle blowers as a consequence of that disconnect.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

15. Don't forget,

the NSA, et al., aren't reading these posts either! I'm scared...............

[rhett o rick]

16. Thanks for posting. Curiously, do you favor reform of the FISA law and Patriot Act?

Do you give any credit to Snowden and Greenwald?

[bigtree]

21. post #14

. . . repeal, not reform.

You get practically nowhere just tweaking what is, essentially, criminal and unconstitutional behavior.

[bigtree]

27. two articles I wrote ages ago

OpEdNews Op Eds 5/9/2006
Relying on 'Reasonable' Beliefs of Bush and Hayden
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_060509_the__reasonable__bel.htm


OpEdNews Op Eds 7/29/2007
Bush's FISA Duck and Cover
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_070729_bush_s_fisa_duck_and.htm

[rhett o rick]

43. I am sorry. I have been getting you confused with another "tree" poster here. My mistake. nm

[watoos]

18. Correct me if I'm wrong

but didn't the House just vote not to rein in the NSA? Just asking.

[AllyCat]

20. Yes, they did. But I think the point of the article is that the horse is out of the barn

so maybe more will come of this beyond this vote.

I won't hold my breath, but I hope more will happen with this that works in our favor, not the oligarchy's favor.

[HardTimes99]

23. 1st attempt (the Amash\Conyers amendment to the 2014 Defense Appropriations Bill). Vote

was very close and, were I Clapper or Alexander, I'd be polishing up the old resume and 'seeking new opportunities.'

[MineralMan]

34. The only control Congress has over the NSA is funding.

They can pass whatever they wish, but unless they cut funding, the NSA will continue to do what it does. Congress knows that, and will continue to fund the NSA, because most of what they do is quite important. They're not interested in the comings and goings of more than a couple of hundred thousand people worldwide. The rest of us are not even noticed, frankly. The FBI is the agency that is interested in domestic activities, and the two agencies hate each other with a purple passion, pretty much.

[WillyT]

25. K & R !!!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

32. What limits can Congress impose that the NSA and the Obama Administration will respect?

Didn't Congress already limit the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to FOREIGN spying?

Didn't Congress already limit testimony given to the Senate to TRUTHFUL testimony?

James Clapper, the National Intelligence Chief falsely told the Senate that the NSA did not collect data on Americans. Then, when caught, said that he gave the "least untruthful" statement. The Obama Administration is not prosecuting him. Nor even removing him from his position. Nor even showing any unhappiness with his false statement to the Senate.

If Congress cannot motivate the Administration to prosecute and send Clapper to a federal prison, there are no limits that they can impose upon the NSA.

[winter is coming]

36. +1. Congress can limit their government funding.

I'm not sure how they'll limit what the NSA does with the money is gets, though.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. Theoretically. But Ollie North, et al., who disregarded the Boland Amendment showed that government

funding, or official government funding approved by Congress, is not necessarily required.

[cascadiance]

38. And "OH NOS!!! Gohmert voted to defund the NSA too! It must be an anti-Obama plot!"

[Catherina]

42. Thanks Bigtree. Rec'd! Impossible to read this related thread and say things haven't gone-a-kilter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023366079

And everyone damn well knows it.

[bigtree]

44. kick

[Scuba]

48. You know damn well Congress doesn't want the NSA or anyone else to have the goods on THEM!

[Atman]

51. Utter nonsense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023370037

[RobertEarl]

52. Kick

It is not nonsense, it is making sausage.