
Livestream of Rand Paul Filibustering Reauthorization of the Patriot Act [video] - sinak
http://floor.senate.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&event_id=320
======
swamp40
First words:

 _Mr. President, there comes to a time in the history of nations when fear and
complacency allow power to accumulate and liberty and privacy to suffer.

That time is now. And i will not let the Patriot Act, the most un-patriotic of
acts, go unchallenged.

At the very least we should debate, we should debate whether or not we are
going to relinquish our rights or whether or not we are going to have full and
able debate over whronts we can live within -- whether or not we can live
within the constitution or whether or not we have to go around the
constitution.

The bulk collection of all americans' phone records all of the time is a
direct violation of the fourth amendment. The second appeals court has ruled
till legal.

The president began this program by executive order. He should immediately end
it through executive order. For over a year now, he has said the program is
illegal and yet he does nothing.

He says, well, congress can get rid of the Patriot Act. Congress can get rid
of the bulk collection. And yet he has the power to do it at his fingertips.
He began this illegal program. The court has informed him that the program is
illegal. He has every power to stop it and yet the president does nothing.

Justice Brandeis wrote that the right to be left alone is the most cherished
of rights, most prized among civilized men. The fourth amendment incorporates
this right to privacy. The fourth amendment incorporates this right to be left
alone._

~~~
stevenmays
I clicked the link and it's another senator talking... anyone know where I can
view the opening part of this?

~~~
adventured
Here:

[http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-
rky-...](http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-nsa-
surveillance)

At the top of the video, click on "Watch this program from the beginning"

Skip to something like 3 hours and 50 minutes into the video. That's roughly
where Paul begins.

~~~
GauntletWizard
Here's a clip of just that bit: [http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4538428/rand-
pauls-patriot-act...](http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4538428/rand-pauls-
patriot-act-fillibuster)

------
randomname2
To those who argue this submission isn't relevant for a tech audience: the
Senators in this hearing are discussing backdoors and encryption right now,
which is pretty relevant actually, and not something we often see on the
Senate floor.

~~~
joslin01
One of his proposed amendments is to disallow governments mandating products
change their source code to allow entities access into the data (e.g., a
backdoor for the NSA). So basically, allowing encryption, which would be huge.

~~~
JoshTriplett
That shouldn't even need to be an amendment. With a government based on an
enumerated and limited set of powers (which the US government is in theory
though _blatantly_ not in practice), it should suffice to not explicitly
permit them to do so.

------
adventured
This is an astounding speech. He's hitting everything that needs to be hit.

Civil asset forfeiture

Patriot Act

Broad surveillance

Mass incarceration

War on drugs

etc

~~~
rsync
These are tactical decisions he is making in an effort to win the presidency.

If he could gain _just one more vote_ by saying the exact opposite of
everything above, he would do it. And so would "your guy". Or gal.

Even if this assertion of mine is note technically true, you should _behave as
if it is_.

~~~
rrss1122
I wouldn't look at it so cynically. The man might be in the Republican Party,
but like his father, he is a man of personal ideals, not one to tow the party
line.

~~~
Frondo
I just wish his ideals weren't so retrograde. This is the same guy who said he
wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act.

~~~
gortok
I'm not a fan of all of Rand Paul's positions; but the reason why he said that
was that it prohibited businesses from serving people they don't want to
serve. The instance he gave was the Jewish Store owner that would be forced to
serve a neo-nazi.

The Civil Rights act keeps business owners from truly owning whom they can
serve; which unfortunately keeps an essential part of social pressure from
happening. Imagine if businesses could refuse services to anyone who didn't
vaccinate their children? Or refuse service to people who are bigots?

Part of the issue with the CRA is the issue with all sorts of legislation: In
its zeal to right wrongs, it has plenty of unintended consequences that have
side-effects that can't be forseen.

~~~
Frondo
Well, right, because business owners perpetuated structural racism. If they'd
all decided that black folks' money was as good as whites', _we wouldn 't have
needed the government to take action_.

The hypothetical of the Jewish store owner being forced to serve a neo-nazi is
pretty weak, when the law addressed a real problem (private business owners'
personal racism) that affected millions of actual people over the course of
their lives.

~~~
gortok
Reading through your comment history; I recognize that there's no way for us
to achieve mutual understanding or have a substantive debate on this issue.
Thank you for responding.

~~~
Frondo
Thanks for at least responding.

I just noticed a flurry of downvotes on all of my comments in this thread.
It'd be nice if the randbots could at least try to talk, instead of knee-
jerking on the little down arrow.

~~~
gortok
Don't automatically assume that people who disagree with you are 'randbots'.
That would make me downvote (if I had that privilege).

Reasonable people can disagree with you without being a 'bot'. I disagree with
Rand Paul on a great number of issues, but I can also disagree with your
position without being a Rand Paul supporter.

This is another reason why we can't have a substantive discussion on this
issue; when someone jumps to name-calling, it's clear they don't want to
discuss the principles of the argument.

~~~
Frondo
I'm surprised that you're responding.

In your own words, "... there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding
...". So, what gives?

Do you want to try to have a discussion after all?

Because, of course, I'm game. I've made no blanket declarations that you'll
never be able to understand my point of view.

~~~
gortok
Not responding to the points you made regarding the CRA; responding to your
specific actions.

~~~
Frondo
Why are you still responding? What kind of rhetorical trick is this?

"I'm not going to talk to you, because there's no way you and I could ever see
eye to eye. ..... except now I'm going to call out some part of your behavior
I don't agree with."

I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish; this is a new form of
internet snark for me.

------
vowelless
Correct link is
[https://floor.senate.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&event_id=...](https://floor.senate.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&event_id=320)

But it does give me a bad certificate warning.

~~~
bradbatt
Another option is C-SPAN, which is livestreaming it as well …
[http://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span-2](http://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span-2)

------
Istof
It seems like it would be a lot safer to elect Rand Paul as US President then
it was President B. Obama

~~~
PopsiclePete
I'm not one of those "everything Obama does is wrong" people, but the man has
been frightfully wrong on Police State issues, IMO, as well as persecution of
whistle-blowers.

~~~
aagha
And that's not just it. Also on deportation, health care (written by the
insurance companies), drone strikes, JSPO, freedom of expression [0] and the
list goes on and on...

0 -
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2532528/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2532528/)

------
dvdfvo
How long has he been talking? How does this work, only if he stops can the
process continue? Can he realistically achieve anything here?

~~~
btilly
If he and his friends can keep talking, they can keep going until cloture is
invoked. That takes a couple of days and 60 senators. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#Procedure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#Procedure)
for the exact procedure.

~~~
vonmoltke
Since it isn't actually a filibuster, he has to yield the floor by 1PM Eastern
tomorrow according to Senate procedure.

------
TD-Linux
For those who don't have Silverlight, you can play this link in mpv or VLC:

mms://207.7.154.95/G1075_002?wmcache=0

------
dimino
When did he start? How long is he expected to go for?

~~~
adventured
He started at 1:18pm EST I believe.

------
Beached
GO RAND

------
akshatpradhan
I found it here:

[http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-
rky-...](http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-nsa-
surveillance&live)

------
akulbe
You GO, sir!

------
hurin
It would be nice if flagging had a generic selection as in stackexchange
reasons for flagging, and users could vote to remove flags.

While there are certainly highly up-voted topics that deserve to go to the
bottom for other reasons - I don't think this is one of them.

------
WalterSear
The title is misleading.

He isn't filibustering unless he goes past 1pm tomorrow. The fact that he has
started now, rather than tomorrow at 1pm demonstrates that he isn't serious -
it's just an insubstantial, disingenuous grab for attention.

~~~
zxcvcxz
I suppose you think the same thing about the other senators who are
participating in the filibuster?

~~~
WalterSear
I didn't know there were any, but yes, whoever they are. The vote is tomorrow,
this is stupid.

EDIT: Either this is stupid, or, if there are enough people to keep this up
for an extended period, it's brilliant. But, I fear that that is a lot to hope
for.

------
powellzer
who's talking now?

~~~
TDL
It's Rand Paul & Ron Wyden who are talking right now.

------
jakobdabo
Flagging legitimate threads by some members is the worst thing on HN. A thread
can have a hundred upvotes but just a few flags will move it out from the
front-page, effectively killing the discussion. Something has to be done about
this, i.e. ignore flaggings once a thread gets 15 points and maybe alert the
mods so they can make human decision on whether leave it or flag out.

~~~
GlickWick
I'm unclear as to how this thread is legitimate, personally. Doesn't seem to
really fit with HN. I'm no fan of the Patriot Act either, but this belongs
somewhere like Reddit.

~~~
gtrubetskoy
IMHO this has a very direct impact on many internet start up (and not start
up) businesses, as well as touches on the very important subject of legality
and ethics of data collection and privacy by government as well as businesses.

~~~
GlickWick
The Patriot Act (and policy in general) can have a serious impact on software
companies for sure.

However, this is a politically charged thread clearly aimed at drawing
interest/support for an individual candidate. This is not supposed to be
permitted on HN.

A thread discussing the potential issues caused by the Patriot Act is much
more suitable for the front page than this.

~~~
remarkEon
Is that not what Paul is discussing on the floor? I mean, he's discussing the
consequences of building backdoors right now.

It would be wise, I believe, if a discussion here on HN about this were to be
informed by what the actual policy makers are saying/thinking.

------
davesque
Ugh...I can't stand this. Says Senator Lee, "we ask you, Mr. President." As
though he bears full responsibility for all of this. Pathetic political
grandstanding. As a reminder, which administration gave birth to the Patriot
Act?

~~~
rsfinn
In formal debate all remarks are supposed to be addressed to the president of
the deliberative body. In this case "Mr. President" may well be the President
of the Senate, not the President of the United States.

(Disclaimer: I haven't had a chance to listen to the stream yet, so I don't
actually know whom Sen. Lee is addressing. In the top remark, Sen. Rand is
most likely addressing the President of the Senate.)

~~~
davesque
Oh, lol. Never mind :)

------
lbarrett
He seems like a bad man in many ways, but I'm glad he's working on doing the
right thing in this case.

~~~
sliverstorm
On what grounds is he a bad man? Do you have reasons aside from disagreeing
with his politics?

