Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the doubtful-but-still-hopeful dept.

The Washington Post has an article discussing the proposed USA Freedom Act. The "act" is not yet an act, it is just a bill pending before before Congress, a measure that would put an end to the NSA’s bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

The article poses a hopeful scenario under which this bill might actually be passed by Congress, or run the risk of allowing the Patriot Act in total, to sunset by itself on June 1.

But there’s a decent chance there will be 60 votes there to pass the U.S.A. Freedom Act in the end. That’s because it’s hard to imagine that there are enough votes in the Senate to pass clean re-authorization to keep bulk surveillance going. Very few Democrats will support that. And libertarian-leaning GOP Senators who are running for president are adamantly opposed to clean re-authorization: Ted Cruz supports the U.S.A. Freedom Act, and Rand Paul may want to go further.

The article makes the case that a large enough contingent of the Senate will realize this, and jump to supporting the banning of mass surveillance, in exchange for reauthorizing some of the other (less controversial) sections of the Patriot act which they feel are more important.

A companion version of the bill has been introduced in the House, where there is already a left-right alliance against bulk surveillance. A good showing in the House might help get this passed in the Senate.

The article seems to think even President Obama would sign the act into law if passed by both houses, especially if hopeful democratic candidates put the screws to him.

The USA Freedom act may appear to be a "Hail Mary" by a few members of Congress. But circumstance and timing may may conspire to make it possible.

So it might be worth an email to your congress-critters for our U.S. Soylentils.

[Update: Removed link to incorrect version of the USA Freedom Act. According to http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/usa-freedom-act, (H.R. 2048, the USA Freedom Act) "On April 30, 2015, the House Judiciary Committee approved by a vote of 25-2 the USA Freedom Act."]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Aichon on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:12PM

    by Aichon (5059) on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:12PM (#177165)

    Does the USA Freedom Act Actually Have a Chance?

    No. [wikipedia.org]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday April 30 2015, @06:00PM

    by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Thursday April 30 2015, @06:00PM (#177188)

    Cynics never win.
    It's the easy way out.
    It lets those in power continue to do things the way they want to do things.
    Cynics never ever win.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday April 30 2015, @06:10PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 30 2015, @06:10PM (#177192) Journal

      Of course, non-cynics lose plenty too.

      The problem with Internet cynics is that they almost universally seem to be preaching giving up from a position of never having sincerely tried themselves.

      • (Score: 2) by Aichon on Friday May 01 2015, @03:10AM

        by Aichon (5059) on Friday May 01 2015, @03:10AM (#177357)

        The problem with Internet cynics is that they almost universally seem to be preaching giving up from a position of never having sincerely tried themselves.

        As the cynic in question for this thread, allow me to declare myself guilty. That said, I have been aware of what's going on more so with this topic than with many others, and I do think that my cynical stance aligns with what the realistic outcome is in this particular situation.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by archshade on Thursday April 30 2015, @08:32PM

      by archshade (3664) on Thursday April 30 2015, @08:32PM (#177247)

      Cynics can win.

      I agree the line of reasoning, this act won't work so lets not bother is cynical (and found a lot around on the internet), and it very damaging. If this was the only embodiment of cynicism I would agree that cynics can't win.

      That said cynicism can be healthy and can show an ability for basic pattern recognition that many people seem to be lacking. From my very basic understanding this bill is a good thing and stands a reasonably good chance of being enacted. We need to act positively based on cynicism and not roll around in the futility.

      I am still cynical though I am sure the NSA and other TLAs will find away around and continue doing what they are doing. My first thought is though an intelligence sharing agreement with a "friendly" foreign intelligence service. Does this act stop the NSA collaborating with GCHQ and then sharing the information back. If all the processing is done by GCHQ then people of interest can be brought to light to the NSA by them (and vice versa). This has gone on before and has historically been made illegal (according to the UK IPT), but is now considered "adequately signposted" and is therefore allowed to continue. Does this bill or any US legislation protect US citizens from information sharing? I certain nothing in the UK does (either protect US or UK citizens). I doubt any legislation in UK in the near future as both main parties are very anti net privacy, the conservatives want to outlaw strong encryption to anyone but approved partner's, and they will have to hand over keys and data to the government.

      • (Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday April 30 2015, @08:40PM

        by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Thursday April 30 2015, @08:40PM (#177249)

        You are right, and the absolutist position I presented was merely a vehicle to make your exact point.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @10:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @10:58PM (#177301)

      You shouldn't be cynical; you should be a realist. Try not to let your emotions get in the way of logically evaluating the evidence.