
Senate Approves Bill to Rein in N.S.A. Surveillance - colinmegill
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/politics/senate-surveillance-bill-passes-hurdle-but-showdown-looms.html
======
colinbartlett
I have read so many articles over the past week about various bills and
efforts to further them or block them and I have no idea what's going on at
this point. I still read this and do not understand.

> the Senate voted on Tuesday to curtail the federal government’s sweeping
> surveillance

> the passage... will lead to the reinstatement of government surveillance
> efforts

Did we stop the surveillance? Did we continue it? Is this really going to do
anything at all to change the culture of mass collection? Who is counting this
as a win? Who is against this and who is for this?

~~~
jdp23
Great questions. USA Freedom has some reforms, and shifts the collection to
the telcos rather than the NSA. Then again it largely keeps the current regime
in place (which makes it a win for the NSA), and it misses out on a lot of
potential improvements. Some privacy and civil liberties organizations
supported it; EFF and ACLU neither supported nor opposed it.

Unfortunately, more aggressive reforms -- like the Surveillance State Repeal
Act -- weren't on the table; and there was a lot of concern that the Senate
would further weaken it. So given the makeup of the House and Senate, passing
the House version unmodified after a sunset was probably the best outcome.
ACLU's Jameel Jaffer says "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."

While the sunset doesn't actually have any long-term effect, IMHO it's still
symbolically important: it meant that the usual tactics of "engineer a last-
minute crisis" didn't work this time. And because of Rand Paul, it's actually
going to be an issue in the GOP Presidential campaign -- which is huge.
[Sanders voted against it as well, saying it was too weak.]

So on the whole I'd say it's a win for reformers ... a small win, admittedly,
and tinged with disappointment that even after Snowden we couldn't do better.
Still, it's a long term battle. And frankly it's been a while since we've had
even a small win.

~~~
phaus
Its technically a win, but in reality its a victorious battle that has likely
cost us the war. Now everyone who voted for this anemic pile of shit can go
back to his/her constituents and brag about how they fought the tyranny of the
NSA. This "victory" is going to prevent a more meaningful reform bill from
gaining any traction in the future. Meanwhile, the NSA gets >99% of what they
want.

~~~
tosser-004
What would be an acceptable level of data collection in your opinion? I've
heard a lot about what people think is wrong, but what would the intelligence
landscape look like if you had your way? Has the EFF stated what they would
find acceptable?

~~~
seanflyon
I like the way it worked before the Patriot Act: want to search someone's
property? Get a warrant. Want to tap someone's phone? Get a warrant. Want to
collect whatever private information? Get a warrant with the target's name on
it.

~~~
rayiner
All of those things still require a warrant, and collecting call metadata has
never required a warrant.

~~~
Retric
The NSA does not need a warrant to track people outside the USA which is more
or less it's job. It can then trade that information with a foreign
governments for there collection of US suspects without a warrant.

From 1946:
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement)
"For example, the British newspaper The Independent reported back in 1996 that
the U.S. National Security Agency "taps UK phones" at the request of the
British intelligence agency MI5, thus allowing British agents to evade
restrictive limitations on domestic telephone tapping.[53]"

~~~
tptacek
Can it actually do that?

~~~
Retric
The NSA can and has, the other side may have limitations.
[http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/06/ipt-nsa-gchq-
ruling/](http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/06/ipt-nsa-gchq-ruling/)

Note the actual judgement is linked on the bottom.

~~~
tptacek
Sorry, I was imprecise.

I believe you that the NSA might provide intelligence to its partners about
foreign nationals that those partners could not lawfully collect themselves.

I'm wondering if NSA can actually procure intelligence about US citizens from
its partners.

~~~
Retric
It's a well established rule that private party's can hand the U.S. government
information of there own free will without issue. The issue is the government
can't request specific information, but a wink wink system of bulk data
sharing should be perfectly legal.

Beyond that point, I have no idea if there is some exemption that lets them
request specific information.

------
bcheung
The USA Freedom Act? Based on the Patriot Act should I assume it is the exact
opposite of freedom?

From Wikipedia:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act)

"According to supporters of the USA Freedom Act, the USA Freedom Act was meant
to end the bulk collection of Americans' metadata by the NSA, end the secret
laws created by the FISA court, and introduce a "Special Advocate" to
represent public and privacy matters."

"The USA Freedom Act is perceived as containing several concessions to pro-
surveillance legislators meant to facilitate its passage, such as extending
the Patriot Act powers until 2019."

I'm so confused. Is this bill a good thing or a bad thing?

~~~
istvan__
We should also stop calling these bills like "the patriot act", "USA freedom
act" and replace the names with something like a unique identifier. That would
remove some of the support from bills like the patriot act.

~~~
grubles
The USA Patriot Act is actually a ridiculous backronym: "Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act)

~~~
dragonwriter
USA FREEDOM Act is similar, too.

------
infamouscow
The USA Freedom Act that passed the House and Senate extends the Patriot Act
until December 31, 2017. This article is complete horseshit.

~~~
istvan__
Not a surprise, given it is New York Times...

~~~
SuperKlaus
Not sure why this gets downvoted - the NYT has a terrible track record
reporting about issues like this so it's a fair point.

~~~
soup10
"We give you access in exchange for favorable reporting", is the standard
arrangement.

------
jdp23
The Senate rejected all the amendments, and passed the same version of USA
Freedom that the House did, so this round of legislative battles is over.
Barring anything unexpected, the next fight is 2017 over FISA renewal.

[All the amendments they voted on would have weakened the protections. Paul
and Wyden weren't allowed to introduce their amendments to strengthen it.]

------
efuquen
For all those confused about this, this is a mild victory. Certainly better
than the Patriot Act, but not as strong a piece of legislation as it could
have been. EFF writes their opinion of it here:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/usa-freedom-act-
passes...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/usa-freedom-act-passes-what-
we-celebrate-what-we-mourn-and-where-we-go-here)

"Technology users everywhere should celebrate, knowing that the NSA will be a
little more hampered in its surveillance overreach, and both the NSA and the
FISA court will be more transparent and accountable than it was before the USA
Freedom Act.

It’s no secret that we wanted more.

...

Even so, we’re celebrating. We’re celebrating because, however small, this
bill marks a day that some said could never happen—a day when the NSA saw its
surveillance power reduced by Congress. And we’re hoping that this could be a
turning point in the fight to rein in the NSA."

~~~
infamouscow
The USA Freedom Act extends the Patriot Act until December 31, 2017. It seems
like nobody, not even the EFF, read the actual legislation.

------
agorabinary
A weak bill that does little or nothing to properly stymie the torrent of
civil liberties intrusions. Much stronger legislation is needed. At least Rand
Paul's efforts produced a symbolic if temporary rebuke of Patriot Act powers.

~~~
davidw
> Much stronger legislation is needed.

Make sure you let your legislators know this via a phone call or written (not
email) comunication. Might not change things overnight, but it's pretty easy
to do.

~~~
sandstrom
Some would argue it won't make much of a difference what the public thinks:

[http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fil...](http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf)

~~~
davidw
If you don't do anything, it will _certainly_ not make a difference.

------
dragonwriter
Given that 215 had already expired, and (as I understand) that was the one
thing in previously-existing authorities that USA FREEDOM Act restrained a bit
(while expanding others), is it accurate to say that USA FREEDOM Act actually
reins in anything? Or would it be more accurate to say it is a pure expansion
of surveillance powers?

~~~
bmelton
Compared to yesterday, it is an expansion of surveillance authority.

Compared to May 30th, it is a slight contraction of surveillance authority.

------
josh2600
The title of this article would suggest that there is a delta between where we
are now and where we are after the bill. Is there a material difference in the
way NSA will behave after the bill? Are surveillance powers any weaker if they
can still query CDRs from operators?

Isn't this, on some level, a subsidy to ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint?

~~~
jessaustin
At least now we get to see the invoice. Don't imagine that Room 641A was set
up for free.

~~~
namecast
I actually wouldn't be surprised if it were.

"Hey $ATT_EXECUTIVE - see what happened to [Qwest's CEO] Joe Nacchio? Good.
Now go splice me some fiber or you'll be joining him."

~~~
jessaustin
I would be surprised. Both Ma Bell and the clandestine service are always
looking for ways to move more money in more directions. A typical scenario:
from NSA to some secret shell company, from there to ATT for the project, from
there to a favored systems integrator to run the project, from there to the
agent-in-charge's nephew for unspecified services, from there back to the
shell company, etc.

------
jakejake
"The passage of the measure, achieved after a vigorous debate on the Senate
floor, will lead to the reinstatement of government surveillance efforts"

What the heck does this mean? Should the title of the article read "Senate
votes to keep the NSA doing almost exactly the same thing?"

------
AdmiralAsshat
Ars Technica's coverage of the same event carried a slightly different
headline:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/let-the-
snooping-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/let-the-snooping-
resume-senate-revives-patriot-surveillance-measures/)

------
fweespeech
This is hilarious in a gallows humor kind of way.

They get articles trumpeting that they "did away" with Section 215, they get
articles claiming they "reigned in" Surveillance by passing a new bill.

The reality is nothing changed for all this theater, its just been dressed up
in different clothes to put the bad publicity behind them.

------
randomname2
Such doublespeak in the title of this article.

~~~
jgrowl
Fitting for this bill named FREEDOM.

------
whoisthemachine
Headline should be "Senate Approves Bill to Reinstate most of NSA
Surveillance"

~~~
mindslight
Nytimes is as close to state-run media as there can be under our microkernel
government.

As to our brief respite from one small part of tyranny:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9642843](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9642843)

~~~
yellowapple
> microkernel government

Hah. I wish. In reality, it's more of a modular monolith than a proper
microkernel.

~~~
mindslight
The nominal government has ballooned in size, but the whole power structure is
still a microkernel architecture. How many aspects of your daily life are
determined by insurance companies and private rulemaking bodies? Nothing can
get through congress unless it benefits some special interest, illustrating
that most power is outside of USG itself, as it is held by capital. Even large
scale policy is set by prominent universities that prevail through attrition
by repeatedly broadcasting "the way it's going to be". None of these things
are accountable to the voters, even if democracy actually worked.

~~~
yellowapple
That's not a microkernel you're describing. That's a modular monolith with
malicious drivers (read: lobbyist-influenced legislators) you're describing.
In a microkernel government, said legislators would be running in userspace,
and therefore not have a direct influence on kernel-space policies like they
do now.

The only way our government could possibly be described as a "microkernel" is
if it's a microkernel _a la_ AmigaOS, where memory protection is virtually
nonexistent (at least in the early versions).

~~~
mindslight
Our disagreement is a matter of perspective on where the real power lies.

> _legislators would ... not have a direct influence on kernel-space policies_

They don't. The kernel is not the federal government, which is but one group
of (albeit somewhat privileged) processes. The kernel is economic control,
which is why I pointed out that most of your daily life is shaped by non-
government processes.

~~~
yellowapple
Then we're not talking about a microkernel _government_ , but instead talking
about microkernel _socioeconomics_.

If we stick to the former case, though, then it's not accurate to say that the
economy is the kernel of this hypothetical operating system. The federal
government very much is; just because it's susceptible to a multitude of
security-related bugs doesn't mean that it's no longer the kernel, much like
how just because the NT kernel is susceptible to a multitude of security-
related bugs doesn't mean that it's no longer the kernel.

~~~
mindslight
As I said, different perspectives on the power relationship between USG and
megacorps.

It's like someone used a security bug in NT to load a hypervisor. You could
say that NT was still "the kernel", but most of the important stuff goes on
outside of it.

------
cchip
Thanks Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, Microsoft, Yahoo and friends for
being on the wrong side:
[https://www.reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/](https://www.reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/)

From take action with Google: "Senator __* said YES to USA Freedom. Say thank
you and show your support. " "Thank your Senator now for saying YES to the USA
Freedom Act."

Freedom Act (Patriot Act v 2.0.. Same author: Rep. Sensenbrenner) must be
vetoed... Someone please start a change.org thing, or whatever.

Freedom Act is going to require everyone to keep records for the NSA... Simple
fix for the no funding problem... "No datacenter, no problem; we'll use yours"

Do not sacrifice your privacy for security.

~~~
yellowapple
> Do not sacrifice your privacy for security.

Note that "security" is (or ought to be) in massive finger-quotes here. Bulk
data collection like this is actually a liability in terms of data security,
not an asset, due to being a large target for attack.

------
stevewepay
I honestly can't tell from the article if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

~~~
glitchdout
It's a bad thing. Also, you shouldn't trust the Times on issues like this. And
I wonder why, of all the available articles, the Times was the one chosen to
be submitted here on HN.

Anyway, just read ArsTechnica reporting:

* Let the snooping resume: Senate revives Patriot Act surveillance measures [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/let-the-snooping-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/let-the-snooping-resume-senate-revives-patriot-surveillance-measures/)

* How the end of Patriot Act provisions changes NSA surveillance [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/how-the-end-of-pa...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/how-the-end-of-patriot-act-provisions-changes-nsa-surveillance/)

------
Splendor
Link to the bill text: [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/z?c113%3AH.R.3361%3A](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/z?c113%3AH.R.3361%3A)

Section regarding bulk collection: [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/F?c113:4:./temp/~c113LpL...](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/F?c113:4:./temp/~c113LpLijo:e34262):

~~~
cchip
"The Government shall compensate a person for reasonable expenses incurred for
producing tangible things"... Great! Thirty pieces of silver for everyone!

~~~
chris_wot
Oh come on. That's not an issue by itself, it's perfectly reasonable under
proper oversight to require that someone turn over material evidence. That's
never been controversial.

~~~
themeek
Well... the draconian _overreach_ of the third party doctrine, including the
_in praxis_ requirement to backdoor services sold to the public, is and
certainly has been controversial, as have tap and trace laws.

In fact, the only reason the Section 215 even had a sunset clause was because
the legislature was so uncertain about the legislation that they wanted to put
in an escape clause.

~~~
chris_wot
Fair comment.

------
pc2g4d
Thoughts on next steps at the end of the article:

"Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, and Senator Leahy made it clear after
passage that curtailing the phone sweeps might be only the beginning. The two
are collaborating on legislation to undo a provision in the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 that allows the government to read the
contents of email over six months old. House members and senators from both
parties are already eyeing a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act that they say has also been abused by the government.

"But opponents of the law said they imagined further fights going forward for
their positions, too. Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said she and
others would continue to seek reforms and oversight.

"'It’s not the end,' she said."

------
Splendor
According to The Verge[0], Senator Wyden -- who I trust very much in these
matters -- said the passage of this bill is "the most significant victory for
Americans’ privacy rights in more than a decade." That gives me some hope that
this bill represents actual change.

[0]: [http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/2/8714651/senate-passes-
usa-f...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/2/8714651/senate-passes-usa-freedom-
act-nsa)

------
nsnick
The headline should read, "Senate Approves Bill to continue NSA phone
surveillance."

------
conorgil145
A Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) press release about the bill:
[https://cdt.org/press/victory-passage-of-usa-freedom-act-
rei...](https://cdt.org/press/victory-passage-of-usa-freedom-act-reins-in-nsa-
surveillance/)

which links to a great table explaining the difference between the house and
senate bills: [https://cdt.org/insight/comparison-of-house-senate-
versions-...](https://cdt.org/insight/comparison-of-house-senate-versions-of-
the-usa-freedom-act/)

------
golemotron
I'm sure that when Snowden's revelations came out the first thing that
happened is that the government created a new more hidden level that could not
be touched by any retaliatory regulation. How could this happen? Does the
legislation call out the NSA by name? If it does consider that maybe another
agency is now doing it.

------
GizaDog
Maybe but the FBI is taking over the spying role!

[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FBI_SURVEILLANCE_F...](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FBI_SURVEILLANCE_FLIGHTS?SITE=VACHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

~~~
themeek
This isn't really right. The FBI does perform surveillance, but they aren't in
charge of signals collection. The NSA is in charge of these capabilities - and
also the protection of the Gov networks.

The FBI also spies, but it is not taking over the NSA's spy role.

They both spy. Neither is decreasing.

------
kelvin0
In other news NSA lawyers have changed the definition of 'domestic
surveillance'. Seriously, that would be hilarious.

------
dataker
Is there any reason to assume it'd stop anyway?

If it hadn't been approved, I doubt the real outcome would've been different.

------
geetee
How long until there is a new fee on my phone bill to pay for the storage and
retrieval cost of this?

------
lani0
if the senate approved, does it mean surveillance was actually good for the
nation's security ?

------
ebel
so snowden can come home ?

