General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"USA Freedom Act"
That's the name of the bill that just passed through the House that allows Operation Spy on Everyone to keep going in overdrive, while we're told that it's been curbed.
"USA Freedom Act". Love it! I hope someone's getting paid handsomely for these names. Preferably someone in the private sector, of course.
Suppose we wanted to pass a bill mandating that poor children mine coal with picks and shovels. What would we call that? The "Keep Our Children Strong Act"?
I feel like I woke up in the middle of a bizarre comedy. (Yes, I do realize that I'm partially at fault.)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Sounds like the Bush team is writing titles again.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)@$!#ing brilliant, thanks!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)wandy
(3,539 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)It is the dystopia world of Orwell.
For them 1984 was a playbook.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)You and a couple/few others.
KauaiK
(544 posts)That is rule my cousin and I decided in the 90's: That 99.9% of whatever the GOP names or states - the exact opposite is the truth. Try it on any issue, law, anything. It works.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It doesn't work anymore.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)It's got what patriot's crave!
Rehabilitation Officer Beef Supreme approves of the "USA FREEDOM ACT"
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Oh shit, were you serious?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Scalia has a pretty good record on 4th and 1st amendment law and so, combined with the more liberal side of the bench, a majority might hold, for example, that mass collection of metadata by the NSA is unconstitutional. But go ahead and laugh your stupid head off instead of explaining why I am wrong.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I agree, Scalia had a good run of decisions on the 4th Amendment in 2013. But that's a recent trend, and he can be swayed in any particular case.
And ignoring political biases, Breyer was no friend of the people on this issue last year.
Call me a cynic, but I don't hold much hope that the SC is going to find in our favor on many aspects of the metadata/spying issues.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I disagree that Scalia's good 4th amendment decisions are merely a recent trend. See for example the Kyllo v United States (2001).
I confess that, if I had to bet on it, I would bet that you are correct that the court would rule the wrong way on the metadata issue, but I am even more cynical about the chances of Congress and the President doing anything serious.
edited to add: I hope I am dead wrong and Congress rises to the occasion in defense of our first and fourth amendment rights.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And I do apologize for it. That was not fair, especially without an explanation.
I fear politics is turning me into a bitter asshole.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)and that DU soon becomes a community of friendly collaborators in the search for truth, a place where disagreement is resolved rationally and an atmosphere of kindness and respect pervades every thread. On second thought, I am too mean to want that.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Oh, wait...
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Who voted for telecom immunity...
Response to joshcryer (Reply #24)
Vattel This message was self-deleted by its author.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)"USA Freedom Act".
ananda
(28,859 posts)Looks like the corporate-political spybots are
still free to do what they do.
As for the rest of us, well ..
ProSense
(116,464 posts)WASHINGTON The House today passed the USA Freedom Act, a bill on NSA spying.
Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, had this reaction:
While far from perfect, this bill is an unambiguous statement of congressional intent to rein in the out-of-control NSA. While we share the concerns of many including members of both parties who rightly believe the bill does not go far enough without it we would be left with no reform at all, or worse, a House Intelligence Committee bill that would have cemented bulk collection of Americans communications into law. We will fight to secure additional improvements in the Senate.
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/house-passes-nsa-bill
EFF and Other Civil Liberties Organizations Call on Congress to Support Uncompromising Reform
Since the introduction of the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill that has over 140 cosponsors, Congress has been clear about its intent: ending the mass collection of Americans' calling records. Many members of Congress, the President's own review group on NSA activities, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board all agree that the use of Section 215 to collect Americans' calling records must stop. Earlier today, House Leadership reached an agreement to amend the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act in ways that severely weaken the bill, potentially allowing bulk surveillance of records to continue. The Electronic Frontier Foundation cannot support a bill that doesn't achieve the goal of ending mass spying. We urge Congress to support uncompromising NSA reform and we look forward to working on the Senate's bipartisan version of the USA FREEDOM Act.
Passing the bill out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote on the House floor is an important sign that Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, and other leaders of the House are engaging in a conversation over NSA reform. We are glad that the House added a clause to the bill clarifying the content of communications cannot be obtained with Section 215. Unfortunately, the bill's changed definitions, the lack of substantial reform to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, and the inability to introduce a special advocate in the FISA Court severely weakens the bill.
In particular, we are concerned with the new definition of "specific selection term," which describes and limits who or what the NSA is allowed to surveil. The new definition is incredibly more expansive than previous definitions. Less than a week ago, the definition was simply "a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account. While that definition was imperfect, the new version is far broader.1 The new version not only adds the undefined words "address" and "device," but makes the list of potential selection terms open-ended by using the term "such as." Congress has been clear that it wishes to end bulk collection, but given the government's history of twisted legal interpretations, this language can't be relied on to protect our freedoms.
Further, the bill does not sufficiently address Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act. We are specifically concerned that the new language references "about" searches, which collect and review messages of users who do not even communicate with surveillance targets.Congress must include reforming Section 702 in any NSA reform. This includes stopping the NSA from searching illegally collected Americans' communications, stopping the suspicionless "about" surveillance, and ensuring companies can report on the exact number of orders they receive and the number of users affected.
We are encouraged by Senator Leahy's commitment to continue with the more comprehensive version of the USA FREEDOM Act over the summer and look forward to working towards NSA reform in the Senate.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gutted-usa-freedom-act