SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Key sections of the USA PATRIOT Act expired
According to the AP, reporting at exactly midnight June 1, the sunset clause of sections 215 et al. has gone into effect, causing those sections to expire.
This link has the rest:
NSA Bulk Phone Records Collection Expires
Phoenix666 writes:
The Senate failed to pass legislation late Sunday to extend three Patriot Act surveillance measures ahead of their midnight expiration. The National Security Agency's bulk telephone metadata collection program—first exposed by Edward Snowden in 2013—is the most high-profile of the three spy tools whose legal authorization expired.
[...] "Are we willing to trade liberty for security?" asked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), perhaps the most vocal opponent of the legislation. Despite an apparent victory, Paul had no illusions that this fight for privacy would end after these specific extension talks. "The Patriot Act will expire tonight, but it will only be temporary," he added.
Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) said it was time to stand up to terrorists and make "sure that we're doing everything we can to protect Americans from threats of people and a lot of organizations that want to kill us all, that would like to see us—see our heads on the chopping block."
After news of the imminent expiration broke, the American Civil Liberties Union quickly weighed in. "Congress should take advantage of this sunset to pass far-reaching surveillance reform, instead of the weak bill currently under consideration," the group said.
Original Submission-1 Original Submission-2
(Score: 5, Informative) by K_benzoate on Monday June 01 2015, @05:16PM
Even if they could make a convincing case that these activities, which are unconstitutional, actually made us safe (they can't), it still wouldn't matter. I don't want to be safe if it comes at the cost of my privacy, and anyone who thinks it through comes to the same conclusion. It might be easier for police to catch terrorists if they can track every phone call with their NSA panopticon. It would also be easier for them to catch criminals if they could walk into any house at any time and have a look around. There are any number of things we could do to "make their job easier" but we don't do them because privacy is valuable. There is no freedom of expression without privacy and anonymity, and all other freedoms fade and decay without free expression.
Living in a free society means you have to take your licks some times. There will be bombs and attacks now and again. People will die. It might be you next time, or me. While you're alive though, you get to live as a free man and not as a slave or a serf or a mere "subject" of a government who sees all you do and knows all you say. Being afraid is fine, but being a coward is un-American. And at bottom that's what the PATRIOT Act is; the desperate pleading of a coward to some authority to make the world safe. The world isn't safe, and when you think through the consequences of trying to make it so, you realize you don't even want it to be.
Find your backbone, and be willing to risk death for the chance to live the way you know you ought: as free people, and not cowards. And in reality, the threat was never even that great to begin with.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 01 2015, @05:28PM
Dayum! Great post! I came here to say much the same thing, and to say that I'll be voting for Paul unless something crazy happens between now and time to vote. Great job. Mod +500 insightful.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday June 01 2015, @06:42PM
Yep, I'm a Libertarian, but I might have to "cross party lines" to vote for RP as he's the closest realistic chance we have of getting someone in close to Libertarian.
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday June 03 2015, @01:57AM
I really wish I could, but how do you feel about the fact Rand Paul is a religious fucking nutter [randpaul.com]?
While he says great, great, things about freedom [randpaul.com], he will in the same breath tell you about God, conception, and how his Libertarian ideals don't apply to vaginas. I have a real issue with somebody who apparently can't reconcile their own concepts of freedom, civil rights, Libertarianism in general, and how all of that equally applies to a woman and her vagina. It makes me think he has real issues upstairs.
It's for this reason, that I cannot possibly be comfortable with him in a position of real power. He can deeply contradict himself to control women's bodies, purely over religious views, so why can't he decide during his tenure that other purely religious views deserve such notable exceptions to his own rules?
That, and regulation isn't the enemy of progress, free markets, or family businesses. In fact, in some cases, it's the only reason we still have progress, free markets, or family businesses surviving at all. Rand Paul, if he had his way, would essentially gut all environmental regulation in favor of industry self regulation. Yeah, he's a fucktard. You elect him President, and he makes changes, you can kiss goodbye to a clean America, and say hello to a dirty China.
What about all the protected species soon to go extinct? Once again, ol' Rand is doubling down on Libertarianism to save the day somehow. Except, we've never seen any evidence that free markets spontaneously do the right things when it's unprofitable.
He is such a half and half. One half I want to be President, and the other half belongs on public television ranting about God's will and the unbelievers soon to burn in fire and brimstone, rabble, rabble, rabble....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 03 2015, @01:51PM
I suspect that you are seeing the president as having more power than he actually has. That could be the result of the current president, who routinely usurps the power of congress. But, congress is beginning to push back, I think. And, at least some courts are beginning to push back as well. O'bummer's amnesty program has been derailed for awhile, right?
If elected, Paul isn't going to change American society. Not unless the American public LIKES his style of leadership, and more people like him get elected to office.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kromagv0 on Monday June 01 2015, @06:44PM
Well considering that the NSA's claim that the bulk spying and data collection on Americans had prevented over 50 attacks has proven to be an outright lie [theguardian.com], and that even the spying that has been done by the FBI hasn't helped to crack any terrorism cases [washingtontimes.com] I would rather have the imperceptible decrease in my personal safety from terror attacks and live in a freer country than give up constitutionally guaranteed rights to be safe from government searches and general warrants and have an infinitesimal greater chance of being taken out by Jihadi John. When put in perspective it shouldn't even be up for consideration but try to get the majority to realize that.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday June 01 2015, @08:52PM
It would also be easier for them to catch criminals if they could walk into any house at any time and have a look around. There are any number of things we could do to "make their job easier" but we don't do them because privacy is valuable.
There is no house in america (with the possible exception of a toy doll house) in which the police could not find some violation, infraction, or crime with which to cite you. There are bomb making materials in every house such as wires and timers and many innocent things that could be combined to go boom in some way or another.
You may laugh and insist this never happens in real life. But if they want to hold you, or they want time to obtain a search warrant, anything will suffice, even if the charges are all dropped in a few days.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 01 2015, @11:19PM
If the terrorists get an opportunity they may harm some people and then get caught. If the government get and opportunity they may harm everybody and you can only comply or get harmed even more. Thus there needs to be a balance such that no unregulated entity may get an power edge over others.
Some people got the clue early on: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
(said somewhere between 1706 – 1790)