
EFF: Stop Congress from Reauthorizing the Warrantless Spying Bill - mtgx
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/congress-poised-reauthorize-fisa-amendment-act-warrantless-spying-bill
======
halviti
With the amount of effort that the executive branch took in order to get this
legislation, even going as far as attempting to invoke the states secret
privilege [1], I wonder what sort of public outcry it would take to actually
get this unconstitutional legislation off the books. Furthermore, if it could
be done, I wonder what would become of the 10's of billions of dollars in
facilities and equipment that have been squandered by the government to spy on
its own people in the name of freedom.

I would love to hear ideas on how we can get this message out to the average
population, and actually get them to care about it.

Sadly, I think a lot of people don't care. Which is almost more worrying than
the legislation itself.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege#AT.26T_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege#AT.26T_and_NSA_wire-
tap_case)

~~~
w1ntermute
In my experience, the sad truth has been that most average people have
responded to this issue by saying that they have nothing to hide and don't
mind since it helps catch terrorists.

Normally, you could expect Republicans to oppose a big government program like
this, but, as we all know, as soon as you say the word "terrorist", they're
all suddenly in favor of big government and big spending.

~~~
Shivetya
Sadder still, the press would be all over this if the Republicans were pushing
it, instead they are complacent.

As a conservative I can say that in my experience that Republicans are rarely
against big government. In the recent election many I know had to hold their
nose as neither Romney nor Ryan were true conservatives.

------
alrs
I live in California.

I just called Feinstein's office and registered my opinion. According to the
staffer, Feinstein supports the extension. Her office can be reached at (202)
224-3841.

I called Boxer's office as well. After dialing <3> to speak with a staffer, it
rang several times and then hung up. (202) 224-3553.

~~~
wjamesg
Good for you, I encourage more to do the same.

I interned for my Congressman on Capitol Hill a few years ago. In my opinion,
volume calling is the best way to actually get heard. Web forms, emails,
faxes: much less so.

U.S. citizens,

Contact your U.S. Representative: <http://www.house.gov/representatives/find>

Contact your Senators: <http://www.senate.gov>

~~~
alrs
If I read the article correctly, the House has already passed this, so there
isn't any reason to call your representative.

It's only your senators that matter at this point. Call both of them.

------
StavrosK
It's bills like this that make me hope that encrypted communications software
like Silent Circle[1] becomes widespread. It's a good way to make large-scale
wiretapping impossible.

Disclosure: I currently work at Silent Circle.

[1]: <https://silentcircle.com/>

------
mcantelon
Who's pushing for this? Where does support for this come from?

~~~
crusso
It comes from voters who are too apathetic or ignorant to understand the value
of basic Liberty.

Any other finger-pointing is pretty meaningless.

~~~
mcantelon
>It comes from voters who are too apathetic or ignorant to understand the
value of basic Liberty.

No it doesn't. Voters aren't complaining to government about this stuff.
Someone else is pushing for this. These sorts of ideas don't come from
nowhere.

>Any other finger-pointing is pretty meaningless.

No it isn't. If we know who's pushing for this we can possibly persuade them
to stop. Politicians aren't going to stop if someone is donating to their
campaigns and there isn't a massive public outcry, but a special interest
pushing for this might be easier to reach (or, if they can't be reached, they
can be exposed, increasing the chance of the kind of public outrage that
politicians might actually react to).

~~~
rayiner
> No it isn't. If we know who's pushing for this we can possibly persuade them
> to stop. Politicians aren't going to stop if someone is donating to their
> campaigns and there isn't a massive public outcry, but a special interest
> pushing for this might be easier to reach (or, if they can't be reached,
> they can be exposed, increasing the chance of the kind of public outrage
> that politicians might actually react to)

This is an oft-repeated but utterly wrong characterization of the political
process. It fits a compelling narrative for some people, but it has no basis
in reality.

Here is the basic truth: it takes neither public outcry or big donations to
get politicians to do something like this. Wal-Mart, Lockheed, etc, don't need
to grease any palms to get a Congressperson to jump at their command. No, all
they have to do is use some magic words: "jobs," "terrorists," etc.
Politicians are a deeply paranoid bunch. They are paranoid of being labeled
"soft on crime" or "soft on terrorism" or "bad for jobs." And they are deeply
paranoid about these things because they are trigger words for the public.

A good example of this is how Obama fell over himself to compete with Romney
about who could be more pro-coal. Why did Obama swing so hard on that issue?
Not for fear of losing donations. The "clean coal" lobby gave $240k to Obama's
campaign. That's nothing in a campaign that raised over $1 billion. No, he did
it because "anti-coal" is a buzzword, not just for people in coal mining
states, but for blue-collar Democrats who equate "anti-coal" with "anti-
industrial jobs" and the more liberal elements of the party.

The same thing is true of terrorism. There is not a huge public outcry saying
"make us safer" but there doesn't need to be. Nobody wants to be painted as
"pro terrorist" and the fear of terrorism is still a great way to get a
project through the DOD or NSA.

~~~
white_devil
> That's nothing in a campaign that raised over $1 billion.

Well, he sure got bought fucking _big time_ though.

------
tomjen3
Yeah, that is not going to have any effect. What the military-industrial-
congressional complex wants, the military-industrial-congressional complex
gets.

------
AutoKorrect
in the end, this would mean nothing. Think about it: the President already has
an extra-Constitutional kill list, why stop there?

~~~
rayiner
What extra-Constitutional kill list? I'm a strong proponent of civil rights,
but the rhetoric around the issue is a bit ridiculous. The Constitution
doesn't have all of these things you think are in there, and both Due Process
and the extra-territorial application of the Constitution are much fuzzier
concepts than your rhetoric contemplates.

The Constitution is not the be-all, end-all of what should limit governmental
action. At the end of the day, we have a democratically elected government.
And voters consistently elect people who believe in the god-given right of
America to kill any foreigner who poses a threat to the country, with no
process at all. Opposition to this policy is, like gun control, something
Democrats abandoned at the national level with Clinton in order to keep the
party from being swallowed up in obsolescence. I don't agree with it, but you
can only fault a President so much for doing what people want him to do.

------
cbc0201
First, your "Take Action" link doesn't work. Second, I don't really care if
"NSA's Supercomputers" are scanning my emails, text messages and even my phone
calls. They're not really interested in my activities. Third, I'll let you in
on a little secret, Its not just overseas communication!

If it keeps safe, what do I care!

~~~
jalanco
I don't mean to pile on, but this comment reminds me of Eric Schmidt's comment
that "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear". There are
at least a couple of things wrong with this sentiment:

(1) if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of
strangers searching your house, your bank records, safety deposit boxes, all
your digital assets, etc. And by "etc" I mean also strip searching your family
members or loved ones if "necessary". Did I go too far there? If so why?
Because after all, "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to
fear". Who gets to decide how far is too far?

(2) And you might respond, "but these aren't strangers searching my stuff and
family, these are duly authorized government officials." Well, duly authorized
government officials are flawed human beings like all of us, and the ones
doing the searching are most likely not elected by anyone.

And also, these people in power at the moment, whose motives you trust, will
most definitely not be in power forever. One day, there will be authorities in
power whose motives you don't trust at all, maybe for very good reasons. What
then?

That's why the erosion of privacy rights is worth fighting.

~~~
Karunamon

       <post type="devils-advocate">
    

_> if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of
strangers searching your house etc etc_

Your point made here is nothing but a pure combination of reduction to the
absurd and the slippery slope fallacy...

~~~
jalanco
Ouch! Please feel free to elaborate because I'm not sure exactly what you are
disagreeing with.

I mean, are you saying that you believe that the people given the authority to
invade your privacy always have good intentions? Because I don't believe that.

In the real world, these authorities are often driven by pressure to "find
something", or to "make a quota", or to "prove our worth". And the results
often harm innocent people.

~~~
Karunamon
Well, okay.

>(1) if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group
of strangers searching your house, your bank records, safety deposit boxes,
all your digital assets, etc.

No, actually I wouldn't, because there's an entire _freakin' universe_ of
difference between cops searching your house, destroying things, having your
neighbors wonder WTF is going on and having an open profile on a social
network (which is what that oft-maligned quote was talking about)

Someone digging through your possessions (and strip searching your family,
_feckin' seriously?_ ) is kind of not even similar to an email being picked up
by an automated computer system.

~~~
mhurron
Warrentless wiretaping is 'digging through your possessions'. It is 'strip
searching your family'. This is not 'oops, I put my drunk picture public on
Facebook.'

That email is stored. It is cataloged. It is cross referenced with every other
email that is sent. It is referenced with every crime that is investigated
that even remotely has the same keywords as that mail. It is indexed in
relation to those you associate with and those they associate with. It is used
to create a profile of every little subversive or thing you may ever be
tangentially associated with and used against you.

This bill allows it to be done warentless because otherwise a warrent would be
required.

To relate this to what you choose to put on a social networking site is not
even in the same ballpark as what the NSA is doing here.

