Bills Aimed at Locking Down the Surveillance State's Overreach

unskewedewd · Sep 23, 2013

The NY Times editorial board weighed in to endorse H.R.2818 - The Surveillance State Repeal Act, in a piece entitled "Close the N.S.A.'s Back Doors" in its widely distributed Sunday edition from 9/21/2013. The board stated bluntly that "It deserves full Congressional support," after reiterating the information that they, along with The Guardian and ProPublica had reported previously:

the [National Security A]gency now has access to the codes that protect commerce and banking systems, trade secrets and medical records, and everyones e-mail and Internet chat messages, including virtual private networks. In some cases, the agency pressured companies to give it access; as The Guardian reported earlier this year, Microsoft provided access to Hotmail, Outlook.com, SkyDrive and Skype. According to some of the Snowden documents given to Der Spiegel, the N.S.A. also has access to the encryption protecting data on iPhones, Android and BlackBerry phones.
Click to expand...

H.R. 2818, The Surveillance State Repeal Act was introduced to the House of Representatives on 07/24/2013 by Rush Holt (D-NJ) does the following:

Repeals the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

Extends from 7 to 10 years the maximum term of FISA judges. Makes such judges eligible for redesignation.

Permits FISA courts to appoint special masters to advise on technical issues raised during proceedings.

Requires orders approving certain electronic surveillance to direct that, upon request of the applicant, any person or entity must furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish such surveillance in a manner to protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing the target of such surveillance.

Prohibits information relating to a U.S. person from being acquired pursuant to FISA without a valid warrant based on probable cause.

Prohibits the federal government from requiring manufacturers of electronic devices and related software to build in mechanisms allowing the federal government to bypass encryption or privacy technology.

Directs the Comptroller General (GAO) to report annually on the federal government's compliance with FISA.

Permits an employee of or contractor to an element of the intelligence community with knowledge of FISA-authorized programs and activities to submit a covered complaint to the Comptroller General, to the House or Senate intelligence committees, or in accordance with a process under the National Security Act of 1947 with respect to reports made to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

While provisions 1, 5,6, and 8 may seem particularly tantalizing to privacy advocates, and thus worthy of full congressional support, a more thorough examination of the implications proves this bill was NOT designed with them in mind. It allows for the continued unconstitutional activity engaged in by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, extends the Judges' terms, and, in essence, codifies into law their abilities to continue allowing the NSA to do exactly what they have been doing through negating provision 6 with provision 4 and giving the FISC the exact same powers with regard to issuing and extending warrants in provision 5.

Yes, absolutely, provision 1 should be undertaken, but on it's own. Until this occurs, the USA CANNOT continue to label itself "The Land of the Free." However, allowing the FISC to continue to act as a parallel to the Supreme Court, with only the Senate intelligence committee and select members of the executive branch allowed to know what they're doing while not being allowed to inform those who they represent when there's a problem or redefinition of law negates this bill's ability to get at the crux of The Problem that Snowden and others exposed.

A repeal of the USA PATRIOT act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is a necessity, but this bill allows the Surveillance State to lumber on in a new legal sense, white-washes it's undeniable demands to tech companies and allows those companies to appease their shareholders through a propaganda campaign based around a straw-man of "We used our lobbying power to block the government from forcing us to incorporate back-doors," when in reality, all it's done is forced gag-ruled compliance to demands from the FISC on behalf of the intelligence agencies.

It's sneaky, and it's passage will probably go a long way towards mending fences with the only people who really matter to the politicians in this case - The intelligence community, the Military Industrial Complex behemoths that profit from their findings, and wealthy tech and telecom giants that love to buddy up to government in private if it means contracts, but whose reputations have been severely tarnished by their complicity.

[It's interesting to note here that Rush Holt's (D-NJ) campaign for re-election in 2012 raised 30% of it's total contributions from PACs, (for a total of $621,640,) and the communications/electronics and military sectors donated to those PACs. For the upcoming campaign, so far PAC contributions only amount to $14,665 while individual contributions are only down ~30% of what they were in total for the previous election cycle. (information sourced from opensecrets.org)]

In the end, It's not all that surprising that the NY Times endorses this bill, as they're nearly as slanted toward the Obama administration as MSNBC is, and passage of this bill would be a huge win for him as well as for Democratic prospects in 2014 and 2016. It would have to be moved through the house which will be difficult without a Republican co-sponsor that sits very near the front, but if it makes it to the Senate, numerous people who are up for re-election or worried about being primaried might support it, including Republicans Olympia Snow, Tim Scott, John Cornyn, Mike Enzi, and Mike Johanns.

unskewedewd · Sep 24, 2013

12 Bills Aimed at Locking Down the Surveillance State's Overreach

IMO, the best case scenario out of all these is a combination of HR 2818 (unlikely but possible), S 1182 (highly possible), S. 1460 &1467 (unlikely) or HR 2586, (much more likely, depending on how much congress wants to be seen as taking back some power from the executive branch), and HR 205 (highly possible).

If HR 2818 is passed with HR 2586 or S. 1460&1467
there's a good chance that it will turn out to be meaningful, as HR 2818 still affords too much power to the FISC. HR 205 should have broad enough support amongst democrats in the house to outweigh the amount of republican securocrats, and since it's a republican-sponsored bill, there's a chance, if it gathers enough co-sponsors, for Boehner to bring it to the floor. Getting rid of Clapper since he's lied repeatedly to congress, should also get some Republican support in the Senate. It would be a cherry on top of other legislation, but on its own wouldn't accomplish much, since the hierarchy in the NSA is iron-clad in its support for chain of command and their decisions.

The Surveillance State Repeal Act (H.R. 281 [6]

Sponsor: Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.)

What it does: Unlike other pending bills that make careful revisions to existing surveillance laws, this one would completely repeal the PATRIOT Act and the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the statutes from which the NSA draws [7] its broad spying powers. The bill also amends FISAthe 1978 law that governs the collection of foreign intelligence informationto clarify that "no information relating to a United States person may be acquired pursuant to this Act without a valid warrant based on probable cause" and it decrees that the government can't require tech companies to build backdoors in their security systems. In other words, this is Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's worst nightmare.

The LIBERT-E Act (H.R. 2399 [8])

Sponsors: Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.),

What it does: This bill takes aim at "Section 215 [9]" of the Patriot Act, which expanded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to justify broad phone surveillance by allowing the government to compel companies to give up "tangible things [10]" that could be relevant to a terrorism investigation. Under this new legislation, the government has to show demonstrable facts that the information they're scooping up is relevant to an investigation. The bill would also insert language into FISA allowing the government to collect information that pertains "only to an individual"so millions of others couldn't get swept up in the NSA's phone metadata dragnet, [11]which hoovers up information like call times, locations, and phone numbers. What the bill doesn't do is revise the 2008 amendments to FISA, which provide the legal basis for programs like the NSA's PRISM [12]the main NSA program that vacuums up online communications. Finally, the bill mandates that the inspectors general for the Department of Justice and "each element of the intelligence community" investigate how many Americans have been targeted by requests made under FISA and how their information has been used.

A Bill To Modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (S. 1182 [13])

Sponsor(s): Sens. Mark Udall (D-Co.) and Wyden, Ron (D-Ore.)

What it does: Like the LIBERT-E Act, this legislation narrows the amount of information the government can collect when conducting a terrorism investigation under the Patriot Act, and how many people can be targeted. It would require the government to produce a "statement of facts" showing there are "reasonable grounds to believe" that the records being collected are relevant to an investigation and "pertain to an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power." Unlike the LIBERT-E Act, this bill lacks the word "only," which could give the government more wiggle room.

The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013 (S. 1215 [14])

Sponsor(s): Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

What it does: The bill attempts to shed more [15] light on the NSA's spying program by requiring government watchdogs to audit national security letters and other top-secret orders; the Attorney General to submit reports to major congressional committees every six months detailing the number of secret national security requests that have been made relating to US citizens; and the government to release to the public an annual report on how FISA is being used and impacting the privacy of Americans. The legislation also reforms the controversial Section 215 of the Patriot Act [16] with similar language to Udall and Wyden's bill.

The Surveillance Transparency Act of 2013 (S. 1452 [17])

Sponsor: Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)

What it does: One of the biggest complaints by tech giants including Google and Facebook is that they are forbidden from telling their users when they are forced to give up user data. This bill would require the government to provide annual public reports on the total number of orders granted under FISA and the Patriot Act, how many users were targeted, and the number of times the government queried "certain databases under specified orders." The bill would also allow tech companies to disclose information about the number of orders they receive that approve "electronic surveillance, pen register and trap and trace devices, the production of tangible things (commonly referred to as business records, including books, records, papers, documents, and other items), and the targeting of persons outside the United States other than US persons."

Government Surveillance Transparency Act of 2013 (H.R. 2736 [18])

Sponsors: Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.)

What it does: This bill would also give tech companies more leeway in what they can tell their users by allowing them to report aggregate information related to orders they receive under FISA every 3 months.

The FISA Judge Selection Reform Act of 2013 (S. 1460 [19]) and the FISA Court Reform Act of 2013 (S. 1467) [20]

Sponsor: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

What they do: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves surveillance requests has been criticized as a "rubber stamp [21]"; these bills seek to change the way judges are selected and bring more accountability to this secret body. S. 1460 would revamp the nomination process for surveillance court judges, who are currently appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court [22] with no congressional oversight. Under this legislation, each federal circuit would nominate a judge to the court, which the chief justice would then have to pick from; it would also add two new judges to the court. S. 1467 [20] would further reform FISC by establishing an office that has the power to declassify rulings and appeal the court's orders, potentially all the way up to the Supreme Court.

FISA Court Accountability Act (H.R. 2586) [23]

Sponsor: Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)

What does it does: The bill would take most of the responsibility for appointing surveillance court judges away from the chief justice of the Supreme Court, placing it in the hands of the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate.

Presidential Appointment of FISA Court Judges Act (H.R. 2761 [24])

Sponsor: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)

What it does: This bill also takes the appointment of FISA judges out of the hands of the chief justice. It would give the president the power to nominate judges to this court, who would undergo the typical Senate confirmation process.

The Ending Secret Law Act (H.R. 2475 [25])

Sponsor: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)

What it does: It requires the surveillance court to declassify all of its decisions and orders that include "significant legal interpretation" within 45 days. But there's a big exceptionwhen the Attorney General determines that "disclosure is not in the national security interest of the United States and for other purposes" the court only has to release an unclassified summary of the decision.

House Resolution No. 205 [26]

Sponsor: State Rep. Tom McMillin (R-Mich.)

What it does: This resolution has one purposeousting NSA Director James Clapper. It reads: "We urge the Congress of the United States and the U.S. Attorney General to prosecute Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for lying to Congress about the National Security Agency's collection of data on U.S. citizens...Effective congressional and public oversight cannot occur if the information presented to Congress cannot be trusted."
Source URL: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/guide-bills-stop-nsa-spying

Links:

[6] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2818ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr2818ih.pdf
[7] http://www.theatlantic.com/national...t-here-and-what-we-can-do-to-get-back/276667/
[8] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2399/text
[9] http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...candal_what_patriot_act_section_215_does.html
[10] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861
[11] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order
[12] http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/8/44...ional-intelligence-issues-fact-sheet-on-prism
[13] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1182
[14] http://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/sch13282
[15] http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/the-fisa-accountability-and-privacy-protection-act-of-2013
[16] https://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-act
[17] http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1452
[18] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2736/text
[19] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.+1460:
[20] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.+1467:
[21] http://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/191226106/fisa-court-appears-to-be-rubberstamp-for-government-requests
[22] http://news.yahoo.com/chief-justice-john-roberts-appointed-every-judge-fisa-111908494.html
[23] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.2586:
[24] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.02761:
[25] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2475
[26] http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(or...px?page=GetObject&objectName=2013-HR-0205
Click to expand...

http://www.motherjones.com/print/234376

waltky · Dec 24, 2013

Granny don't like it when dey peek inna bathroom winda when she takin' a shower...

White House Trying To Prevent Ruling On NSA Surveillance
December 22, 2013 ~ The Obama administration acknowledges for the first time that the NSA's collection of data on American's Internet and phone activity was authorized by President Bush in 2001.

The Obama administration has filed papers to prevent a federal judge from issuing a ruling on whether the government's warrantless surveillance programs are constitutional.
In a pair of filings late Friday with court for the Northern District of California, the White House acknowledged for the first time that NSA's bulk data collection on American's Internet and phone activity was authorized by President Bush in the weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. "President Bush issued authorizations approximately every 30-60 days," wrote James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence. "Although the precise terms changed over time, each presidential authorization required the minimization of information collected concerning American citizens to the extent consistent with the effective accomplishment of the mission of detection and prevention of acts of terrorism within the United States. NSA also applied additional internal constraints on the presidentially authorized activities."

The government argued, that despite recent leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, further revelation's about the NSA's surveillance and data collection programs could put the government's security at risk if they were divulged in court, he wrote. "Disclosure of this still-classified information regarding the scope and operational details of N.S.A. intelligence activities implicated by plaintiffs' allegations could be expected to cause extremely grave damage to the national security of the United States," Clapper wrote.

Arguing that it can continue to assert its state secrets privilege to block information from being used in a court, the Justice Department has asked US District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White to dismiss the case without ruling on whether the programs violated the First or Fourth Amendments of the Constitution. The court had earlier ordered the government to evaluate how Snowden's leaks had affected it invocation of the state secrets privilege.
Plaintiffs in the cases, including the Electronic Freedom Foundation, have until late January to respond.

"The government seems to be trying to reset the clock to before June 2013 or even December 2005," EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn said in a statement. "But the American people know that their communications are being swept up by the government under various NSA programs. The government's attempt to block true judicial review of its mass, untargeted collection of content and metada by pretending that the basic facts about how the spying affects the American people are still secret is both outrageous and disappointing."

MORE
Click to expand...

waltky · May 23, 2014

Curbing the NSA's domestic spying...

House passes curbs on NSA phone surveillance
May 22, 2014 - WASHINGTON (AP) In an overwhelming vote, the House moved the U.S. closer to ending the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone records Thursday, the most significant demonstration to date of leaker Edward Snowden's impact on the debate over privacy versus security.

But the final version of the legislation, "watered down" in the words of one supporter, also showed the limits of that impact. The bill was severely weakened to mollify U.S. intelligence agencies, which insisted that the surveillance programs that shocked many Americans are a critical bulwark against terror plots. The bill was approved 303-121, which means that most House members can now say they voted to end what many critics consider the most troubling practice Snowden disclosed the collection and storage of U.S. calling data by the secretive intelligence agency. But almost no other major provision designed to restrict NSA surveillance, including limits on the secret court that grants warrants to search the data, survived the negotiations to get the bill to the House floor.

And even the prohibition on bulk collection of Americans' communications records has been called into question by some activists who say a last-minute change in wording diminished what was sold as a ban. "People will say, 'We did something, and isn't something enough,'" said Steven Aftergood, who tracks intelligence issues for the Federation of American Scientists. "But this bill doesn't fundamentally resolve the uncertainties that generated the whole controversy." Though some privacy activists continued to back the bill, others withdrew support, as did technology companies such as Google and Facebook. Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said, "I believe this is a workable compromise that protects the core function of a counterterrorism program we know has saved lives around the world."

The measure now heads to the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters Thursday that "we must do something." The USA Freedom Act would codify a proposal made in January by President Barack Obama, who said he wanted to end the NSA's practice of collecting and storing the "to and from" records of nearly every American landline telephone call under a program that searched the data for connections to terrorist plots abroad. The phone records program was revealed though the leaks last year by Snowden, who used his job as a computer network administrator to remove tens of thousands of secret documents from an NSA facility in Hawaii. Snowden fled first to China, then Russia where he is avoiding an extradition order to face criminal charges for revealing classified information.

The phone companies create and store those billing records, and the legislation still would give the NSA authority to request batches of data from the companies to search in terrorism investigations in response to a judicial order. Law enforcement agents routinely obtain such records in criminal investigations. The USA Freedom Act started its life as the idea of those who wanted to clamp down on NSA surveillance, but it was "watered down," as Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., acknowledged, shedding a series of provisions favored by civil liberties activists. Some activists continued to back the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union, whose Washington legislative director, Laura Murphy, called it an imperfect but "unambiguous statement of congressional intent to rein in the out-of-control NSA."

Technology companies such as Google and Facebook said they were most concerned with a last-minute definition change that they fear will allow the government to collect huge volumes of records including, for example, records of all the phone calls made from a particular U.S. city during a certain period, or all the internet data associated with a particular commercial router. The bill's original text limited the government's data requests to those associated with specific people, entities or accounts. The approved version says the government may use any "specific selection term" to set the parameters of its search, including a type of device or an address. The new language appears to allow much broader data requests. "The new version deliberately contains ambiguity in a very critical area," said Harley Geiger, senior counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology. "We've learned about the government track record of exploiting ambiguity in the law to broaden its surveillance activity."

MORE
Click to expand...

snakestretcher · May 23, 2014

So, is Mr. Snowden still a 'traitor' or has he done his fellow Americans a genuine favour? Conflicted conservatives are invited to comment...

Log in or Sign up

Bills Aimed at Locking Down the Surveillance State's Overreach

unskewedewd New Member

unskewedewd New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

snakestretcher Banned

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Bills Aimed at Locking Down the Surveillance State's Overreach

unskewedewd New Member

unskewedewd New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

snakestretcher Banned

Share This Page

Useful Searches