
White House Seems Afraid NSA Defunding Law Could Actually Pass Today - mlschmitt23
http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/24/white-house-seems-afraid-nsa-defunding-law-could-actually-pass-today/
======
forgotAgain
Whether or not this results in actually de-funding the NSA spying on US
citizens it is still an important vote.

First, every member of the House will need to say whether they support spying
on all citizens or not. They are on the clock for re-election in 16 months,
less for primaries. Being on record for supporting spying on their electorate
will cause more then a few to lose. That's a good thing.

Second, if by some chance the amendment passes the House, then the President
can no longer claim he is spying on us with the support of the other two
branches of government. He will need to acknowledge that he doesn't have the
support of the American people.

Politics is a process. Things don't change in a day. That doesn't mean we
should give up or get frustrated. This is a very good step in the long process
to change things.

~~~
vampirechicken
Does the Senate ordinarily fillibuster appropriations bills?

The Senate still has their secret, hands-free fillibuster. This one could die
in the senate, or be the bill that forces the Dems to change the Senate's
fillibuster rules.

~~~
vampirechicken
And it was neither. Corporate lobbyists win again.

------
andyl
White House complains: "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed,
open, or deliberative process."

Ironic.

~~~
marze
That is more than ironic.

I don't think the English language has words that can even approach distantly
the level of irony here.

...informed...open...deliberative...

~~~
mathattack
Where's Orwell when we need him?

~~~
coldcode
[http://orwell.ru/bio/grave/english/](http://orwell.ru/bio/grave/english/)

~~~
epmatsw
I thought there was going to be a clever joke about him spinning, but alas.

~~~
tome
I thought it was going to be an animated GIF of him spinning.

------
anaptdemise
"the president has said that he welcomes a debate about how best to
simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our
citizens."

Yeah, as long as that debate takes place on news casts and meetings and not,
you know, the legislature or the courts or anywhere that can possibly do
anything about it.

------
eah13
Point of order: the _bill_ may pass the House of Reps. Senate would have to
pass it and president sign it before it becomes _law_. Big difference.

Crappy headlines like this promote a misunderstanding of how gov't works... OP
should read up on civics a little

~~~
WestCoastJustin
My understanding of the US political process is based off what I have learned
from TV and the news, but even if it passed the House and Senate, the
President can still veto this bill, right? So, since we already know the
President supports this cause, and it is his last term, the chances of this
becoming law are nil.

~~~
showerst
You're basically right, but if it passes both chambers and the president vetos
it, they can over-ride that veto with a 2/3 majority of each chamber.

That's unlikely, so you're correct in parsing it as a statement being made,
not than something that they actually -want- to have happen.

This is extremely common in the US congress.

~~~
scottshea
What is interesting is that if the bill passes with a 2/3 majority Presidents
are unlikely to use the Veto. Nothing stops them from vetoing it but they
usually take the passing with that strong of a margin as an indication that
the veto would be overridden anyway.

~~~
adestefan
If they really feel strongly about it they'll let the bill sit for the 10 day
period where it becomes law without their signature.

------
tzs
I am puzzled by all of this apparent concern people have over privacy all of a
sudden. Over a year ago, an essay [1] written by Judge Kozinski was submitted
[2]. This was one of the most insightful and important essays on privacy and
how we are at risk of losing much of it written in the last quarter century or
more. It got NO votes and drew NO comments. (It has 2 points because 2
separate people submitted it).

It's currently an open question whether or not what the NSA is doing violates
the 4th Amendment. Even if it is a violation of the 4th Amendment _right_
_now_ , it will not be in a few years due to the factors Kozinski discusses.

[1] [http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-
paradox/dead...](http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/dead-
past)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3834977](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3834977)

~~~
gtaylor
I find "why are we only now getting upset" remarks to be as silly as the "what
are you hiding?" ones. The reason there was zero support/interest in that the
essay is that it failed to hit close to home to the general population. I had
no idea the thing even existed.

And therein lies the interesting thing about the Snowden leaks. They were
tailor-made to get people riled up over something that they could mostly
understand, and the media actually covered it to some degree (although they
could have done more). Just like people get cringey when you throw around the
"T" word, a government overreaching like this will piss off liberal and
conservative American non-politicians alike.

What the NSA is doing is _wrong_ , and it doesn't matter WHY people are up in
arms now versus X number of years later. That's completely irrelevant. We
should all be stoked that we're still seeing discussion about this a month+
later.

------
macspoofing
> ...the White House is officially urging Congress to reject it: "This blunt
> approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative
> process..."

Oh, did we have one of those when it was funded? Must have missed it.

------
cpursley
Nonsense. It's all theater.

Edit: in response to the downvotes. When was the last time _anything_ (large)
was defunded by the US congress?

Be realistic. The natural trajectory for a state is to _consume_ and _expand_
until doing so is no longer sustainable.

Fat people like cake. Dogs chase cats. Bears shit in the woods.

~~~
rayiner
That's not exactly the trajectory evidenced by the numbers:
[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf)
(Figure 4, p. 17). Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP has declined
dramatically since 1980. Discretionary spending in absolute terms (adjusted
for inflation) declined through the 1990's:
[http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/feder...](http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/federal-
spending-by-the-numbers-2012/the-federal-budget-1992-2012). Federal civilian
employment is at roughly where it was in the late 1960's:
[http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-
docum...](http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-
documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-
employment-since-1962), even though the overall population is 50% larger.
Total federal employment, including military, has been smaller over this
decade than it was at any time since 1962. About 2 million fewer people worked
for the federal government in 2011 as did in 1969.

The narrative of ever-ballooning government is almost entirely driven by
entitlement spending (i.e. me writing a check that gets immediately sent out
again as a check to grandma). Now it's a somewhat philosophical question, but
I don't think it's accurate to call increased Social Security or Medicare
expenditures an "expansion of the state." When I think of the "state" I think
of layers of bureaucracy, weapons programs, etc. I.e. money the government has
discretionary control over. The long-term trend of that is one of decline, not
growth.

~~~
cpursley
What I mean is _nation states_ in general and over a much longer period than
you're talking about.

~~~
awj
...then why make the assertion that congress _never_ defunds anything?

~~~
adestefan
Because it doesn't fit their narrative that all government is bad government.

------
vinchuco
[http://defundthensa.com/](http://defundthensa.com/)

~~~
hga
Just don't use a fixed script, your natural words will have more impact. Keep
it short and sweet, "Amash amendment", "to HR 2397", and I'd avoid mentioning
the Nugent amendment, e.g. the recipient might accidentally mis-remember what
you said and make a mark on the tally for it, or both.

For extra content I think you'd be better pointing out that the "data about"
(rather than "metadata) the phone call you're making right then is being
recorded by the NSA.

~~~
unimpressive
Congratulations. Your comment was the guide I used to call.

Think I did it too late though. Sorry guys.

EDIT: Dammit I did. Just saw the news. It was close though.

------
jrwoodruff
According to Amash, the bill doesn't actually defund anything, but instead
aims to end blanket surveillance of Americans by requiring that any records
being requested via Section 215 are for 'a person under investigation.'

See this FAQ from Amash's office:
[http://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files/072413Ama...](http://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files/072413AmashMythFact.pdf)

~~~
forgotAgain
_None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to execute a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court order pursuant to section 501 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) that does not include
the following sentence: "This Order limits the collection of any tangible
things (including telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming
calls, and the duration of calls) that may be authorized to be collected
pursuant to this Order to those tangible things that pertain to a person who
is the subject of an investigation described in section 501 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861)."_

(pdf) - [http://amendments-
rules.house.gov/amendments/AMASH_018_xml27...](http://amendments-
rules.house.gov/amendments/AMASH_018_xml2718131717181718.pdf)

As I read it the amendment forbids the money appropriated via the bill to be
used to collect information on an individual not under investigation via a
FISA court order. Fees for blanket orders, like that given to Verizon, cannot
be paid with via this bill if the amendment is attached.

------
suprgeek
In addition to the Irony Rich statements coming from the Whitehouse, they are
attacking this from another front
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/01361323896/duelin...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/01361323896/dueling-
house-amendments-over-cutting-nsa-surveillance-funding-one-is-red-herring-to-
trick-congress.shtml)

The Nugent amendment while sounding very similar is probably meant to gut the
"real changes" Amash amendment by splitting the votes.

Sneaky ..very sneaky

------
pcl
If you feel strongly about this, call / email / write your representative and
senators. It seems obvious to say, but if you don't, they won't know your
opinion.

[http://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup](http://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup)

------
adventured
We need a lot of people in the streets protesting to get meaningful
legislation to pass restricting the mass spying activities of the US
intelligence system. So far all the efforts seem like shots in the dark. As it
is, the politicians will play their standard game of waiting out the uproar.

Americans also need to start thinking about international relations as well.
It's an outrage how we've been treating our friends. We should be demanding
significant restrictions against international spying as well.

~~~
rhizome
_We need a lot of people in the streets protesting_

Telephone is fine for now.

 _As it is, the politicians will play their standard game of waiting out the
uproar._

It's not merely an "uproar" when there is a bill to be voted on. Call your
reps:

[http://www.house.gov/representatives/#byState](http://www.house.gov/representatives/#byState)

~~~
EdSharkey
Excuse me, but I seem to recall there was quite a bit of hooey made over
"warrentless wiretaps" in the '08 election by the left. Bush lied, and all
that noise. Where is the goddamn noise now?

I am wishing that the Left wasn't so full of hypocrites and WOULD actually
take to the streets in protest and be the nuisances they normally are. But
it's their guy in the WH, and noone likes to admit their guy is a screwup.

Go camp out in a park and defile it with your filth for Justice! Make a big
stink, do a #2 on a cop car in protest!

~~~
vectorpush
_Excuse me, but I seem to recall there was quite a bit of hooey made over
"warrentless wiretaps" in the '08 election by the left. Bush lied, and all
that noise. Where is the goddamn noise now?_

You're not paying attention. Just about every liberal nexus on the internet is
enraged regarding this. Ironically, those who have labeled Snowden as a
traitor are generally conservative leaning thinkers, whereas almost every
liberal in existence has embraced Snowden as a hero.

 _I am wishing that the Left wasn 't so full of hypocrites and WOULD actually
take to the streets in protest and be the nuisances they normally are. _

[http://rt.com/usa/nsa-protests-july-4-700/](http://rt.com/usa/nsa-protests-
july-4-700/)

~~~
EdSharkey
I was half joking in my post, I hope that was clear.

I did not know there were physical protests going on. I suppose the media
isn't as willing a partner on this issue and isn't helping to spread the word.
Normally, one disgruntled hipster with a bone to pick can make the news, might
need to call in the wto hooligans...

Definitely some wagon-circling going on here by those in power who seek to
maintain that power.

------
nanidin
I do think something needs to be done. I don't think that something is to
completely dismantle the NSA - that's as reactionary as the PATRIOT act was
with regards to 9/11.

The USA has some of their most brilliant crypto/security/intel guys working at
the NSA. What happens with them when they are no longer getting paid? They go
private I suppose. Is that in the best interest of the country? Or would it
make more sense to reign in the NSA and declare the spying illegal, or some
other less radical approach that keeps the good guys around and gives them
something better to do than record every phone call and text we make?

~~~
michaelt
Most countries have intelligence apparatus of course, no reason the USA
shouldn't have something fulfilling the NSA's role.

But if there's one thing this debacle has shown me it's that there's not just
a few bad apples playing fast and loose with checks and balances and
constitutional safeguards. The rot extends throughout the NSA, the secret
courts and secret oversight committees, literally up to the president.

I don't know what form the eventual reforms will take, but if they're going to
achieve anything they will have to be extremely extensive. They will have to
go well beyond a slap on the wrist for the NSA.

~~~
aryastark
> Most countries have intelligence apparatus of course, no reason the USA
> shouldn't have something fulfilling the NSA's role.

This isn't terribly compelling to me.

I've never understood why we _don 't_ question the validity of both the NSA
and the CIA, post-Cold War. Especially when our government just invented an
entire war paradigm based on vague threats and the "terrorist" label, which
can be applied to anyone the government wants at will.

The old paradigm of state secrets is, IMO, outdated and no longer useful. We
should be marching towards total transparency of government. With the Internet
and cellphones and cameras everywhere, governments can no longer hide in
darkness. They have done very bad things in our name. We know better today,
and shouldn't have to accept that this is just the way it is.

------
guscost
Not to play Big Brother's advocate, but even considering improvised explosive
pressure cookers and underwear, I'd wager that 100 NSA snoops bring more of a
tactical advantage to this "War on Terror" than 10,000 boots on the ground in
Kunar province.

Whether we're achieving anything by wading into that quagmire is another
question entirely.

------
caycep
Next thing you know, the power goes out and Skynet takes over...

