Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 12, @01:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the pay-no-attention-to-the-TLA-behind-the-curtain dept.

The House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday that would extend a controversial government spying power known as "Section 702" for another six years—without new privacy safeguards that had been sought by civil liberties groups.

Debate over the legislation now shifts over to the Senate, where it faces a filibuster threat from both Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

"If this Section 702 bill comes to the Senate, I will filibuster it," Wyden wrote in a tweet shortly after the House bill passed.

Wyden opposes the legislation because he believes that it offers too few protections for Americans' privacy rights. The powers granted by Section 702 are only supposed to be used against foreigners on foreign soil. But an American's communications can get swept up in the NSA's surveillance dragnet if they communicate with people overseas. Privacy advocates have championed an amendment to impose new privacy safeguards on the use of Section 702. But it was voted down by the House on Thursday.

[...] There isn't much time for the Senate to act. Section 702 expires on January 19, a little more than a week away.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/as-house-passes-surveillance-bill-wyden-and-paul-vow-filibuster/


Original Submission

 
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Comment

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: 2, Informative) by Sulla on Friday January 12, @08:19PM (2 children)

    by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12, @08:19PM (#621535) Journal

    I see you have been modded disagree, so I will provide some sources.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate [wikipedia.org]
    In the past decade both the democrats and republicans have tried their hardest to end the practice of filibusters. Reps tried to do it under Bush and after Rand tanked a provision of the 2012 NDAA the Dems did it under Obama. Both parties want to limit the ability of the people to elect on man who can hold up their goal of supreme power.

    Regardless of his faults, Rand has stood up on multiple occasions and filibustered bills that shat all over our rights and freedoms. Wyden has joined in every time, but did not start them himself.

    --
    I post without karma bonus, you should too
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @11:28PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @11:28PM (#621606)

    The fake filibuster (nobody is actually talking until they piss their pants) is allowed because the uniparty wants an excuse to avoid legislation.

    Both republicans and democrats are free to say things to please the voters, safely knowing that bribe payers ("campaign donors") won't get pissed.

    So the republicans can go on about something like repealing Obamacare or building a wall, but they will always be a vote short. That vote used to be Obama's veto. Now it is McCain or Murkowsky or Flake. Likewise, the democrats can go on about something like jailing bankers or something really foolish like 100% paid college, but they will always be a vote short.

    Politicians seem to trade off the role of being the person to cast the vote that pisses people off. It typically goes to somebody who is certain to not be reelected.

    The filibuster helps politicians to hide their malice. With it, they don't have to vote on something that would force them to choose between pissing off voters and pissing off donors.

    • (Score: 2, TouchĂ©) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13, @06:25AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13, @06:25AM (#621716)

      or something really foolish like 100% paid college

      That's foolish, even though we're the richest country on Earth, other countries have done it, and we already do public K-12. But man, for some reason, free college would be absolutely impossible! Whenever it's something that will help out the average, we don't have any money to do it, but we always have money to bomb brown people in the middle east. Look at the monkey! Look at the silly monkey!