Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 15 2015, @01:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the sudden-outbreak-of-common-sense? dept.

Last night, we noted that an amendment from Reps. Thomas Massie and Zoe Lofgren was on the docket that had two provisions to stop two different kinds of surveillance: the first, taking away funding from "backdoor searches" which are a hugely problematic "loophole" that the NSA uses to do warrantless surveillance of Americans. In many ways, this is much worse than the bulk collection programs that were just hindered by the USA Freedom Act. The second part of the amendment was barring funds from being used to mandate "backdoors" into technology products -- another hugely important move. Thankfully, the amendment passed by a wide margin earlier today: 255 - to 174.

The article goes on to mention that a similar amendment was proposed and passed with a much wider margin in previous debates last year, but was later dropped when passing the higher profile "CRomnibus bill" required it.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Monday June 15 2015, @02:59PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 15 2015, @02:59PM (#196518) Journal

    "I'm totally for the constitution, except when it's moderately inconvenient to how I'd act as a dictator" isn't the compelling argument you think it is.

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

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Geezer on Monday June 15 2015, @03:00PM

    by Geezer (511) on Monday June 15 2015, @03:00PM (#196519)

    The last seven or so US presidents beg to differ.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:01PM (#196521)

    Straw man. That's not what I said. Maybe you should reread my post, as I was making fun of the idea that the government actually cares about what the constitution says.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:04PM (#196524)

      If you're talking about the latter part, then I'm really not seeing how punishing those who violate the highest law of the land is an issue, but that doesn't relate to ex post facto. I guess it's an issue if you don't really want the government to obey the constitution.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday June 15 2015, @03:06PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 15 2015, @03:06PM (#196526) Journal

      It's totally what you meant, though.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:14PM (#196529)

        No, it isn't, and you're a bad mind reader.

        • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday June 15 2015, @03:22PM

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 15 2015, @03:22PM (#196534) Journal

          Oh come the fuck on. You said congress ignores the constitution all the time, thus let's do it now. It's not "mind reading", it's you being a shitty fucking hypocrite,

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:34PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:34PM (#196539)

            You said congress ignores the constitution all the time, thus let's do it now.

            The second part is incorrect. I never said that.

            • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday June 15 2015, @03:37PM

              by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 15 2015, @03:37PM (#196542) Journal

              Yeah, yeah, context is meaningless. I pointed out a constitutional reason not to do a thing, you went, "nuh uh we ignore the constitution all the time".

              This is basic fucking conversational inference, and this is the dumbest meta-debate. Own your stupid opinion, please.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:44PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:44PM (#196545)

                Context isn't meaningless. I pointed out that the government clearly doesn't care about the constitution, so there's no reason that ex post facto would stop them. I did not say ignoring the constitution was a good idea; that's a straw man.

                It's pretty arrogant to try to tell me what I intended.