A bipartisan-sponsored bill has been proposed to the United States House of Representatives, titled (accurately, for once) the "Surveillance State Repeal Act".
The bill (full text [PDF]) would completely repeal the Patriot Act and FISA Amendment Act, destroy most of the collected data, require warrants for all surveillance of Americans, forbid the government from requiring backdoors in hardware or software, and create a whistle-blowing immunity for reporting violations. Needless to say, this seems like a big step in the right direction.
I have already contacted my representative, and you may wish to do the same.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bill Proposed to Repeal Patriot Act and FISA Amendments
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 68 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:28AM
As a frequent Yank-basher, I'd just like to humbly say well done, maybe if this goes through (big if) you will be able to once again say the words "land of the free once, home of the brave" without everyone else laughing into their sleeves.
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
-- William Shatner.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by WizardFusion on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:43AM
I too am a yank-basher, and I know this will never pass. It will fail quietly, never to be heard of again.
The NSA, et al, have too much at stake to allow it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:33PM
Yeah, but you foreign types don't understand why it will fail. It's not because the NSA will do something nebulous and shifty and silently kill it.
It all comes down to the pile of perverse incentives our representatives face. The question they ask themselves is not "How will my constituents view this bill" but instead "How will my vote on this be spun as a 2 second sentence in the 30,000 hours of commercials that super PACs for their opponent will run"
In this case "Helping terrorists".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Leebert on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:28PM
True, but you're also missing the fact that, no matter what the government does, sooner or later another terrorist attack will happen. When it does, the "well-versed in Monday Morning Quarterbacking" American public will be screaming "why didn't you do more?!", and virtually no politician wants to be on record for voting to do LESS.
As per usual, it's mostly our (the collective American public) fault.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @06:45PM
In other words, idiots (likely the majority) want perfect safety, which would bring about a nightmarish police state and is impossible anyway. I like how the number of people required to die before people demand the government have more power to ignore the constitution just keeps decreasing. First about 3000 (a pathetically small number to begin with), and then extremely small-scale attacks that kill at most a few people have people demanding more rights violations.
Life has risks. Sometimes people die. Until people accept this, that whole 'land of the free, home of the brave' nonsense is pure propaganda.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday March 27 2015, @02:23AM
We've learned we can survive terrorist attacks.
To date, no one has successfully pointed out and terrorist attack that the Patriot Act prevented. Yet there have been a lot of lost souls tricked into buying fake explosives, or attempting to transfer government supplied (usually disabled) weapons, but no real terrorists. Everybody knows this. Everybody knows it is security theater.
We just have to grow a pair and say so. We can run with scissors too.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:56AM
We had a mantra around the schoolyard, so long ago the Cold War was still a thing: "One Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all, except us."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @10:48PM
One Nation
I was fiction then and it's fiction now.
Georgia state flag [google.com]
Mississippi state flag [google.com]
Arkansas state flag [google.com]
Alabama state flag [google.com]
While the window dressing has changed in some places, you don't have to make too deep a scratch to find the old coat of paint.
under God
...and God help you if you don't believe in the RIGHT god. [google.com]
...and those of you who don't believe at all...
If you're old enough, you will remember a time before the Red-baiting McCarthy era, before the Knights of Columbus got these 2 words inserted into something that hadn't seen the need for them going back to 1892.
indivisible
See the list of state flags above.
Half a century ago, those wounds were still fresh in some minds.
When you hear talk of California wanting to be its own country, you realize the "one" and "indivisible" things are quite silly.
with Liberty and Justice for all
...if you're the right color and gender and have enough wealth.
except us
Some of us realized it even back then.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:17PM
As a Yank, I suspect this has approximately the same odds of passing as a moose has of surviving a supernova. Also, I would not be surprised to learn details about the sex lives of all of the co-sponsors trumpeted in major media outlets, because that's one way the Three-Letter Agencies fight back against politicians trying to limit their power.
Also, your quote was originally by Winston Churchill, not William Shatner.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday March 26 2015, @03:59PM
I'm pretty sure he knows the Churchill attribution. :-)
It's like this t-shirt: http://rlv.zcache.com/funny_greece_t_shirt-rf38173abaf404cce863b8e5bce2b1b65_804gs_324.jpg [zcache.com]
Churchill, BTW was a racist and genocidal maniac - with endorsement and policy on par with Stalin's Ukraine famine, in Bengal. So? His endorsement of "right things" are pretty terrifying. They include nuking Japan.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 26 2015, @04:13PM
> I'm pretty sure he knows the Churchill attribution. :-)
Oh yes [youtube.com], I do.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday March 26 2015, @05:08PM
Brill.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Thursday March 26 2015, @04:15PM
I always liked Churchill's thoughts on White Man's Burden which really showed how bad of a fricking racist he was...
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race has come in and taken their place."
Yep blacks and Native Americans are dogs when compared to white folks...damn, makes your racist grandpa look downright mellow, don't it?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday March 26 2015, @05:07PM
It's up there with Himmler.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:18PM
It won't go through.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:42PM
William Churchill, you dolt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:05PM
Are you sure you didn't try to say Winston Shatner, you also dolt? But you are both wrong, it was Jarvis Cocker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:52PM
Wilson Churchill
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:53AM
Oh come on! Representatives have been promising to repeal the Patriot Act for years. They either give up or become discredited and kicked out. Nothing ever changes in the Obama-Land of Change-We-Need.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:28PM
I don't have a couple million dollars at my disposal, nor the means to raise that kind of money. My representative could care less what I think.
My ducks are not in a row. I don't know where some of them are, and I'm pretty sure one of them is a turkey.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Buck Feta on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:45PM
You should just give up then.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 26 2015, @03:55PM
No he shouldn't give up, but by the same token, WTF is there to do? This is exactly like having to break down a brick wall and the only tool you have is your bare hands. You're going to fail and your going to get hurt at the same time.
About the only thing I can think to do, would be to setup a public repository of the BS doubletalk responses that reps and senators make when you email them for a response. They aren't going to be ashamed though and they totally won't give a fuck.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday March 26 2015, @04:03PM
I not only vote in every election, I take the time to learn the issues and candidate's positions. But more and more it just doesn't seem to matter, the ruling class is the enemy and we're the peons. Lets look at the (admittedly early) list of presidential candidates. Ted Cruz? Oh god, please no. Hillary Clinton? It will be a cold day in hell when I vote for her. Jeb Bush? I'll vote for HRC before voting for that asshat (I'm seldom a single issue voter, but Terry Schiavo ensured I'll never vote for him)
Remember, no matter who you vote for the government always gets in.
My ducks are not in a row. I don't know where some of them are, and I'm pretty sure one of them is a turkey.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 26 2015, @04:33PM
I vote in every election but I no longer invest any time in looking at the D or R candidates _publicly_published_ positions because I will vote for neither no matter what. The parties are so corrupt that nobody can rise to the point of having party support, without having become a part of that corruption. Mostly, I end up voting for my cat but if there is a 3d party candidate running, I'll vote for that person no matter what the 3d party is. I'd vote for Satan before I'd vote either R or D and feel like I was making the moral and right choice.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 26 2015, @07:25PM
I'd be interested how many votes Satan would have to get before the Big Two took notice.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @09:25PM
That would be a good vote because Satan does nothing without God's explicit permission, per The Bible. The only way Satan could "rebel" as Christians claim is if God explicitly told him to, and then he'd still just following God's orders. That does make him an authoritarian though, so maybe it wouldn't be a good vote after all.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 27 2015, @04:32PM
Yyyyyyyup. But hey, how many believers actually know their own holy books? I may not be an atheist, but I know one thing for damn sure: there is a word for a man (or a woman in my case) who studies religion deeply and honestly, and that word is "infidel."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @10:54PM
no longer invest any time in looking at the D or R candidates
Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is definitely a sad state of affairs.
If e.g. Elizabeth Warren chooses to run for President, your position would be too extreme IMO.
Now, while actions do speak louder than words, if someone voted against something that you supported, it would be worth knowing -why- that position was taken (a poison pill amendment?).
...and, as you and GP note, having your *Do not approve of the status quo* vote on the record is important.
A vote for Fido (or the Green candidate) says "The choices being offered suck".
Fido (or the Green candidate) shows up in the percentages as "None of the above".
Folks who don't cast a ballot are sending the message "Things aren't all that awful yet".
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2015, @10:45AM
If e.g. Elizabeth Warren chooses to run for President, your position would be too extreme IMO.
Nope. [thehill.com] I don't want more surveillance or world police tactics.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday March 26 2015, @09:02PM
I don't have a couple million dollars at my disposal
Use Indiegogo. Submit it to Slashdot. Maybe Ars will pick it up. You never know where it might go.
I'm not American and yet I would chuck in $10.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:02PM
I'll believe it when it has become law and is practiced ..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:05PM
It won't happen. Don't stop disbelieving!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday March 27 2015, @02:10AM
it won't, no matter how hard we wish it.
Just as Obama made all sorts of grandiose promises, each of which he backed away from, you can bet that any president in the whitehouse would have a thousand people in government beseeching him to veto such a bill.
Obama seems hell bent on securing his legacy. Championing such a bill and securing its passage, and signing it into law would take him from the worst president in history and put him right up there with Abraham Lincoln as a hero of human rights. Every other stupid thing he did would be forgotten. Every promise he broke, every law he ignored would all be forgotten, and he would be a patriot of the highest order.
But he is a small man, and he would veto this in a heart beat, if ever it managed to pass congress.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27 2015, @09:38AM
Lincoln might not have been as bad as his opposition, but he was no hero. He ignored the courts on a number of occasions and violated people's liberties in the name of safety, which is not justified even in a time of war.
So yes, you're right; all the horrendous things he did are commonly ignored and plenty of people have him down as some kind of saint, even though that couldn't be further from the truth.
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:06PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Thursday March 26 2015, @03:10PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Friday March 27 2015, @10:23AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Funny) by fritsd on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:11PM
I'm impressed, and hope that those two representatives live long enough to see their bill implemented!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:24PM
They'll live. They'll never sponsor another bill, and they'll never be elected again, but they'll live.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 26 2015, @07:19PM
Why bother killing them when all you have to do is publish some probably-not-even-that-hard-to-find detail of their personal lives that they shouldn't even be embarrassed about and all the bleating sheep will run them out of town?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:11PM
It will be interesting to see how the various contenders for both parties respond to this, but particularly the Republicans. I imagine Rand Paul will vote to repeal these invasive acts, but some like Ted Cruz won't.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:26PM
But the unpatriotic act is already unconstitutional to begin with.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ox0000 on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:38PM
I don't see your point...
I think we've moved into an area where 'legality' doesn't mean anything any more. I therefore suggest another test we can apply to figure out whether something should or shouldn't be allowed. I call it... "The Dick Test"(tm).
When debating whether or not something should be allowed or not, ask this simple question: "If it were a person doing it instead of a state, and let's call that person Richard for argument's sake, would you consider Richard to be a dick?" If the answer is 'yes', then legal or not, whoever or whatever is doing it is a dick and should not be allowed to do it!
Examples:
- Warrant-less wiretapping: if Richard were spying on you without a warrant, would you consider Richard to be a dick?
- Drone Killings: if Richard were utilizing drones to drop bombs on you, would you consider Richard to be a dick?
- Stop and Frisk: if Richard randomly stopped and frisked you in the middle of the street for no apparent reason, would you think Richard is a dick?
- Shoot first, ask questions later: if Richard shot you for no apparent reason claiming that you 'resisted arrest', would you think Richard is a dick?
I could go on but I gather the reader gets the point...
This test removes the stupid argument of "but it's legal" because that doesn't mean anything any more. It's not because it's legal that it's good... Avoiding taxes is legal too, but it's a dick thing to do!
If it's a dick thing to do, it should not be allowed to do. (*)
(*) note that I am not advocating on appropriateness of punishment for doing dick things. I'm just offering The Dick Test(tm) as an alternative narrative to be used when someone comes back to you saying "but I did nothing illegal".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:23PM
No one here is confusing legality and morality. This law violates the constitution in numerous ways, and because of that, it's no law at all, contrary to what the government claims.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:28PM
It should be called "The Chaney Test".
(Score: 2) by Jiro on Thursday March 26 2015, @08:31PM
Someone who walks down the street and takes some money from you is certainly being a dick. Do you oppose all taxes?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday March 26 2015, @09:40PM
taxation is not theft, so thats a false analogy. a better one would be "you're driving down the road and a worker stops you to make you pay the toll (which goes to maintain the roads and not in somebody's pocket)".
(Score: 3, Funny) by wantkitteh on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:36PM
I'll bet Edward Snowden just crossed his fingers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Alfred on Thursday March 26 2015, @03:07PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:24PM
A relevant factor in their decision making process might be how many people at their town hall meetings during recent Congressional recesses were calling for them to be hanged outright. Most people anywhere, anytime are sheep and would never *gasp* countenance revolution, but when the 6'6" taciturn ranchers with pickups and properties full of weapons and Semper Fi tattoos on their arms give you the 1000 yard stare, it's a little different matter. That would send a frisson up the back of any politician, no matter how big the latest bribe from Wall Street bankers was.
That said, I'm with most people posting here--it will never pass. Some patsy in the Senate will pull a little-known procedural maneuver to lock it up in committee forever, so that all the co-signers of the bill can go back to their constituents to play the usual BS spiel of, "Gee, *we* tried to do something about this but *those* corrupt meanies in Congress wouldn't let us. Don't blame/hang us!" (In my fantasies that's when the South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut Bill Gates moment arrives where they shoot him in the head as he launches into his excuses.)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tibman on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:01PM
Getting the word out that this bill even exists might help. I also looked all over Massie's page and couldn't figure out how to send the guy money.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:17PM
I would predicate giving them money on the bill becoming law. Else, it's another Congressional pump-and-dump scheme.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tibman on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:55PM
Sometimes you have to back a team before they have become the winners.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday March 26 2015, @03:49PM
Sure, send them a statement of support, but don't give them a dime until they deliver. They have amply demonstrated they deserve no more.
Because there's also a saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Except in the case of Congress and modern American government, that could be amended to, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 1x10^7 times, and you shall go to the guillotine." My read is we're somewhere between steps 2 & 3 in that statement.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 26 2015, @04:12PM
I don't know anything about the legislators involved in this, but it is quite apt to label it as a potential pump-and-dump. There are times when measures arise which have no hope of passing, and politicians will latch on to these in order to mollify their base knowing that they would absolutely not vote for the bill if there was any chance of passage because their donors (aka owners) would be very displeased. The owners however, are savvy enough to realize that public support of lost causes is a necessary deception that the reps they own must play out, and don't mind.
Now, as I said, I know nothing of the people involved in this. They may well be totally sincere, but the Federal government is corrupt and rotten to its very core and you can't get elected to high office without being in on the corruption and thus, suspicion is rational. That said, we should not let suspicion prevent support of good laws.
(Score: 1) by splodus on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:39PM
My first reaction was 'I really hope the media in the UK pick this up!'
We've recently had our Prime Minister calling for backdoors to all encryption [bbc.co.uk] and members of his cabinet demanding new powers for GCHQ, [theguardian.com]. One of the recurring themes when asked to justify it is 'well the US have something similar and intend to expand it further'. In fact Cameron even asked Obama directly for support [theguardian.com] in 'banning' encryption.
With the UK General Election coming up, widespread coverage of this bill might just wake people up a little to the fact that the two major parties over here are both intent on broadening UK powers to gather data on its citizens. And that it is not the case that 'everybody else is doing so we should too!'
(Score: 3, Informative) by TK-421 on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:25PM
So most everyone agrees that this bill stands no chance of ever being signed into law. I admit I am shocked about it's being drafted in the first place and though I haven't read it yet I suspect I will end up supporting it.
So if we mostly agree it will die, where does everyone think it will do so; House, Senate, or POTUS's desk?
I am betting on the Senate. Given the Republican majority, passage will require all Republicans and several Democrats to sign on. A similar bill died in the House in 2013. What is different now is the fact that parts of the USA Patriot Act are sun-setting this year. It's time to either double-down on stupid (renew all expirations) or come to Jesus and take a new course (scrap the old life and take on a new life). This new landscape I think will push the bill past the House landing it in the Senate. If it dies it in the Senate which side is going to bulk; the Republicans again doubling-down on stupid or the Democrats because they really don't believe in transparency?
I don't believe it will make it to the POTUS's desk but if you do I would like to hear your reasons for why you think it will die there.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 26 2015, @04:15PM
Republicans suck so hard they could drain the oceans of all life. Democrats suck so hard they would follow in their path and drain them of all water. This red v. blue thing is just a show to get people to keep voting red or blue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27 2015, @03:10AM
It will linger in subcommittee hell until finally being quashed or fall off the docket to be in permanent waiting. It is the same place all things seem to die that have popular support. Any other way would be career suicide for someone. Doing it this procedural way allows politicians to claim no guilt over the thing dying.
Which subcommittee? Was it a rule? Was it a procedural error? Did it not make it through the parliamentary hoops when moving from one committee to another? Who exactly was on those committees and at what date did this happen? Where are the records, if any at all are kept?
Truly a shell game with dozens of shells and all the excitement of c-span.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:30PM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313 [senate.gov]
Wealth of information there to start. I particularly enjoy Measure Title ending in "and for other purposes."
Notice the _1_ Nay vote.
Also, a fascinating story about how it all came to be from my favorite radio program of all time, Radiolab: http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/ [radiolab.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fatuous looser on Thursday March 26 2015, @03:31PM
The time for killing the PATRIOT Act was September of 2013 when Congress returned to D.C. to begin its new session. We'd had time over the summer to digest the appalling, stomach-churning revelations of NSA perfidies. The Act should have been dead that morning. It was our one chance. But the day came & went &-–-nothing. The silence of that nothingness happening still resounds.
& naught will come of this new bill. (At least they named it right.) It will provide a pulpit for hot-air grandstanding & moralizing. Will be a noisy, colorful parade for the cheering masses & after it's passed by you'll just feel empty inside.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by goody on Thursday March 26 2015, @05:15PM
Someone will roll in an amendment to repeal the ACA.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday March 26 2015, @09:46PM
that was basically my thought. some disgusting bullshit will get amended in as riders like always, something like repealing the ACA or banning abortions or birth control or something, so it'll be bad for us regardless of if it passes or not.
(Score: 1) by drgibbon on Thursday March 26 2015, @08:57PM
Presuming that the law actually has an effect on these people (I was under the impression there are now secret courts in existence), this would be pretty easy to hack if it actually passed. All it would take is the sacrifice of a handful of people in a suicide attack somewhere in the US, and the whole thing would come back even harder than before, and this time around it would be accepted in full.
Certified Soylent Fresh!
(Score: 3, Funny) by tathra on Friday March 27 2015, @03:04AM
or they could just ignore intelligence [go.com] that says an attack is imminent [wikipedia.org] in order to push through shit they'd been wanting to for a while.
the US has a history of ignoring the intelligence it already has, [independent.co.uk] especially since the year 2000; gathering more intelligence with larger dragnets won't solve that, so they're obvious totalitarian power-grabs. this is the obvious key to fighting this unconstitutional bullshit if they try to implement again, if we're able to get rid of it in the first place that is.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday March 27 2015, @09:31AM
The problem is ultimately The People (though evil politicians who give in to their insane demands are at fault too). So many do not value freedom, and want to sacrifice everyone's liberties in the name of safety, despite the fact that they pretend to want to live in a free country. I would rather risk dying in terrorist attacks than have a government that's supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people ignore the constitution and everyone's fundamental liberties in the name of safety. That is a much worse scenario than being killed by random terrorists or other bogeymen.
(Score: 3, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Friday March 27 2015, @11:44AM
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Surveillance State Repeal/Pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27 2015, @05:48PM
Sponsored by two first-termers, a lightweight from Wisconsin who has no significant committee memeberships and a Kentuckian whose record seems to indicate he's not likely to have many favors owed. No bill number yet (and apparently there was an identically titled bill in the 2013-2014 session HR 2818... a different critter that had 10 cosponsors including Pocan.) But no mentions anywhere of any co-sponsors to this one, yet.
Yeah, this thing is dead before its filing is MVHO.