SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Congress has sent legislation to the president reviving and remaking a disputed post-9/11 surveillance program two days after letting it temporarily expire.
The vote in the Senate Tuesday was 67-32. The House already has passed the bill, and President Barack Obama plans to sign it quickly.
The legislation will phase out, over six months, the once-secret National Security Agency bulk phone records collection program made public two years ago by agency contractor Edward Snowden.
It will be replaced by a program that keeps the records with phone companies but allows the government to search them with a warrant.
Senate Republican leaders opposed the House bill but were forced to accept it unchanged after senators rejected last-ditch attempts to amend it.
The story is being covered live by The Guardian.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the most voluble defenders of the NSA in the past two years, has offered a more measured endorsement of Tuesday’s vote. She says she voted for the bill because it was “the best opportunity to quickly get [surveillance] programs back up and running.”
She emphasizes that the bill will allow “this and two other important counterterrorism programs to continue,” an allusion to Section 215 and the “lone-wolf” and “roving wiretap” provisions of the Patriot Act.
“I believe these programs are necessary to protect American lives and prevent terrorist attacks in our country,” she said in a statement.
Deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU, which did not back the USA Freedom Act, has nonetheless described the bill as “a milestone”.
“This is the most important surveillance reform bill since 1978, and its passage is an indication that Americans are no longer willing to give the intelligence agencies a blank check,” Jaffer said in a statement.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @03:15AM
> To a real and present danger
Your premise is false. Since 9/11, the number of americans killed by islamic terrorists, even using the most broadest possible definition - like a radical killing a jew and then stealing his car - is only 37. Out of 190,000 murders in that time period, just 37. [duke.edu] That's 0.02%. More americans die from bee-stings, each year [buzzaboutbees.net] than terrorism over the last 15 years. Where's the multi-billion dollar bee monitoring programming?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @03:18AM
Your premise is false. Since 9/11, the number of americans killed by islamic terrorists, even using the most broadest possible definition - like a radical killing a jew and then stealing his car - is only 37.
And when was the Patriot Act enacted?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @04:27AM
Amazing answer, except that even before that the number one extremely low. 9/11 was hardly a blip on the radar in the long run. In order to prove that the PAT RIOT Act is actually effective, you need to put forth direct evidence that it's effective. You don't get to just assume it's effective by using arguments from ignorance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @01:18PM
It doesn't matter if the PATRIOT Act (or FREEDOM Act) is effective, its unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @05:13AM
> And when was the Patriot Act enacted?
In the 20 years prior to the 9/11 zero americans were killed be islamic terrorists.
So hows that tiger repelling rock [getelastic.com] working out for you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @03:17PM
In the 20 years prior to the 9/11 zero americans were killed be islamic terrorists.
Wrong [911memorial.org].
And to anybody who bothered to think, instead of just pontificate, you can't assess probabilities of military or terror events by going back dozens of years into history. Al Qaida gained traction throughout the '90s and, as of 9-11, the world had changed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @06:24PM
> Wrong.
I was aware of the Cole Bombing - an attack on a military vessel on the other side of the planet.
In fact, I was deliberately sloppy with my wording in order to give you the opportunity to prove if you are serious or not. You chose to bite on something irrelevant to the question of domestic spying.
> you can't assess probabilities of military or terror events by going back dozens of years into history
So you can't look at history before 9/11 and you can't look at history after 9/11 -- you can only go with hysteria. Now that's some deep thinking!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:29AM
In fact, I was deliberately sloppy with my wording
k, I've spent enough time talking to you.