
Amash’s Amendment To Defund NSA Program Fails 205-217 - llamataboot
http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/24/rep-amashs-amendment-to-defund-the-nsas-domestic-phone-metadata-program-fails-205-217/
======
tptacek
Copied from the other thread, because it bears repeating:

I think it's important to keep in mind that the 12 vote margin is comfortable
for Amash and supporters of new NSA restrictions and uncomfortable for its
defenders.

Here's why: opponents of Amash wielded an argument that "split the vote".
Representatives who voted against Amash could have done so for one of two
reasons:

(1) They actively support providing the NSA with unchecked access to cell
phone metadata under the "business records" provision of PATRIOT, _or_

(2) They don't support that access, but can't support a broad amendment that
potentially de-funds whole NSA programs, and instead need something finer
grained to correct NSA with.

Meanwhile, _everyone_ who supported Amash believes strongly --- so strongly
that they're willing to do something disruptive to NSA --- that new checks on
NSA are needed.

(I think Amash was a good amendment, if only because it would force the House
to do its actual job and carefully regulate intelligence collection; if it
caused a temporary shitstorm, so much the better --- it'd be a well-deserved
comeuppance for a legislature that has been derelict in its duty to oversee
these programs. But you should be aware that opponents of Amash had a
persuasive-sounding argument for voting it down _even if you believed new
regulations were needed_.)

I think this was a pretty hopeful vote.

~~~
ronaldx
Agreed: as a British citizen, I find this vote _incredibly_ close.

As an analogy, there is absolutely no political will here to change the status
quo regarding unchecked data collection. The two largest political parties
would likely be automatically against an equivalent amendment on national
security grounds, whipping their members to vote against (and few members
would care to break ranks).

As such, no vote would even take place. If it was forced in a full chamber, it
would perhaps fall 100-550.

Edited to add: Exemplified by a spending review announced a month ago
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23060592](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-23060592) "3.4% increase in combined budget for intelligence
agencies": meanwhile many other budgets are squeezed by 5-10%

~~~
m_mueller
As a Swiss I'm always amazed how in indirect democracies, 'political will'
equates to whatever the top ruling people are up to, depending largely on what
lobbyist de jour is paying best as well as the proximity of elections. It's
absurd to me to be honest. Why _wouldn 't_ you want a system where (a) the
final say can always be cast by people's votes and (b) the government is put
together proportionally? This basically mitigates both of these problems: (1)
Elections become way less important, so the parties don't throw too much money
into them - winning 2% every 4 years, in rare cases an additional cabinet
member of 7, just doesn't justify putting hundreds of millions into a
campaign. (2) Lobbying is worth much less as well since you can't lobby people
very easily.

And yes, I'm aware that every system has flaws and people's votes aren't
always sane - but given the alternatives...

~~~
shykes
I am extremely interested in direct democracy, and the possibility of using it
for larger populations thanks to technology improvements. To my knowledge the
main argument against direct democracy has been "it only works for small
groups". Could modern computing and telecommunications change that?

~~~
scilro
The main argument against direct democracy is the danger of majoritarian
oppression: e.g. imagine calling a vote to reinstate slavery and succeeding
because 51% of the population supports slavery. Having a set of laws like the
Bill of Rights that is agreed upon by consensus and enforced by courts is a
safeguard against that.

~~~
mseebach
There's nothing in direct democracy inconsistent with a constitution securing
basic rights and a supreme court enforcing it. Indeed, Switzerland has exactly
that:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution)

The main argument against, as I see it, is the lack of accountability, the
prime example being California demanding more spending and lower taxes at the
same time. Of course, indirect democracy has done very little to prevent that
either.

When Switzerland doesn't pass laws similar to California's, I think it's
because they have a much more homogenous society where there is simply a large
degree of agreement on how things should be done - and so, the remaining bits
lend themselves well to be decided by direct democracy.

That's also my response to the GP: no, no amount of interwebs and technology
can turn a large and diverse population that disagrees fundamentally on many
important issues into a small and homogenous one that agrees on most things.

~~~
rdouble
The Swiss aren't homogeneous, though. They have four official languages and
20% of the country are resident foreigners. The various cantons don't often
agree with each other and only 30-40% of the country votes.

~~~
m_mueller
Thank you. Here it is again, the 'US isn't homogeneous' excuse.

------
KevinEldon
Your representative is probably on Twitter. If you've got an account tweet how
they voted and what you think about it. Be polite. You can of course email and
call them too to share you viewpoint.

Find your Representative -
[http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/](http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/)

Amash vote -
[http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml)

~~~
kbd
Thanks for the links! I learned who my representative was and sent him a
respectful e-mail inquiring about his nay vote.

------
kristopolous
I'm knowingly paying an organization to openly wage cyber warfare and
espionage operations on me?

Splendid. At least we may get a few good HPC and IR publications out of it.

Actually, it will probably be outsourced to contractors who will squander it
away without producing anything.

Unless, that is, the next 9/11 gets planned using twitter hashtags. Actually,
since the Sandy Hook shooter openly talked about his plans on 4chan, I'm
guessing that even a twitter campaign would still "pass under the radar".

I bet the only real consequence is that someone will lose a laptop with like,
everybody's social security number and financial history on it. It's going to
be so awesome.

~~~
unimpressive
> Actually, given that the Sandy Hook shooter openly talked about his plans on
> 4chan, I'm guessing that even that would still "pass under the radar".

Hoax?

[http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/415935/20121217/sandy-
hook...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/415935/20121217/sandy-hook-newtown-
connecticut-adam-lanza.htm)

~~~
kristopolous
ok fine. Gabriel Giffords shooter posted pictures and details on his MySpace
profile prior to the assassination attempt.

And for people like Colleen LaRose or the Underwear bomber, just a web browser
and plain-old internet led to the apprehension. With Michael Reynolds,
traditional "law enforcement officers posing as honeypots" style did the
trick.

These classical methods seem to be working quite alright.

What is the use-case here? Some dastardly secret terrorist conspiracy where
they collaboratively make detailed plans, over the internet, in clear text,
like this:

\-----

From: evilbomber@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: RE: re: re: Re: Secret plans

To: confidant@not-the-fbi.com

CC: coconspirator@gmail.com, evildoer2213@excite.com, bombmaker@msn.com

Attachments: annotated-map.pdf

\----

Hey all,

After reviewing the bombing plans of the terrorist attack next Tuesday, set
for Washington DC, when the Secretary of State, Jon Carey, is set to arrive by
motorcade at 4:15 PM, I've decided that our assassination attempt (where we
plan to Kill Jon Carey) would be best suited for a different intersection.

As you can see here, there is a better place to bomb the motorcade.

Also, I've gotten all the parts for the IED. This includes the incendiary, a
timer, and all the wiring necessary. I carefully asked a bunch of questions on
various open forums and posted pictures to confirm I made everything right. I
also disclosed my intended use of the bombs along with my radical political
leanings.

Anyway, Down with the USA, and I hope to meet all of you to make this death of
a US diplomat a reality, next Tuesday, at 4:15 PM.

Patiently Awaiting Martyrdom,

evilbomber.

P.S.: What's encryption?

~~~
jrockway
Speaking from personal experience, I'd recommend not using real names in a
fake plot like this.

~~~
kristopolous
Alright, swapped out.

------
altero
I think this is the end of the cloud. For me (as european) it is now
unacceptable to use american webservices and remote apps. We had a good run.

~~~
Silhouette
_For me (as european) it is now unacceptable to use american webservices and
remote apps._

As someone running businesses in Europe, I am genuinely concerned about
whether the Safe Harbor scheme still protects us legally if we allow US-based
services to use personal data about our customers.

As I understand it, the point of Safe Harbor is to recognise that some US-
based companies have data protection measures sufficient to meet the stronger
European standards, and therefore to permit the export of such personal data
outside the EEA to those trusted partners where this would otherwise be
against the law.

Given that the protection that any US-based partner can offer is now known to
be limited, and that no-one running a business here could credibly claim not
to be aware of that, I don't know where we'd stand legally if a politically
active customer decided to make a point. Even if we openly disclose which US-
based partners are involved as part of the relevant privacy policy, it still
leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

~~~
altero
It already started. Irish Google has been sued recently for sharing data with
american mothership.

------
pvnick
Twelve votes? That's it? Wow, that's incredible. The first real tide change
we've seen since the passage of the patriot act. Those who voted Nay seemed to
do so because "metadata isn't covered under the 4th amendment."

Wait until they find out the NSA is raking in the call contents too [1]

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-
nsa...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa-cell-
phone-calls_n_3520424.html)

------
lettergram
Republican: 94 yea 134 Nay Democratic: 111 yea 83 Nay

Pretty close and party lines didn't seem all that important.

~~~
marcamillion
This surprised me too - especially given the rhetoric I was hearing from the
lamestream media about this vote being cast along party lines.

Given that the majority of Dems in the house voted for it - in fact more than
Republicans - I think that is a MAJOR, MAJOR rebuke to Obama.

I am sure he will notice that.

------
livestyle
Would be interested in a consolidated list names of those who voted in favor
and against this bill.

~~~
unimpressive
I would be interested in knowing where I can find this sort of information in
general.

~~~
emhart
Senate:
[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_m...](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm)

House:
[http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp)

------
s_q_b
Repost from another thread on the same issue:

I really do commend everyone involved in this effort. This is how the system
is supposed to work, citizens making their voices know, and the legislature
acting upon the will of the people.

Honestly you guys got far closer to your goal than I would have anticipated.
The bipartison support was almost unprecedented in recent years.

From a practical matter, even if the House bill passed it was dead on arrival
in the Senate. But nevertheless it is a significant symbolic blow to blank
surveillance against American citizens.

All I've tried to communicate, perhaps with less than appropriate tact, is
that this is going to be a long slog.

If you're going to reign in the surveillance state, you'll need to start
thinking like Washington insiders. Pick one incumbent that vocally supported
these programs, and take him or her down. That will instantly catapult this
issue to the top of the concerns in DC.

It only costs a few million to get that done. Considering the wealth of the
tech industry, and the threat this poses to overseas expansion of the US
internet services, donations shouldn't be overly difficult to drum up. We
could really make a large dent in getting the legislature to help roll back
these programs to sane levels. Add to that an anit-SOPA style social media
campaign, and you could accomplish real and lasting change.

------
BashiBazouk
If this is to be fought the time is close at hand. First off if this is played
as a left vs right issue it will lose. Second this needs to be won at the
primary level. If both the democrat and the republican in a district/state are
against it, then it doesn't really matter who wins as far as this issue is
concerned. Bonus points if when the debates start, instead of opposite sides
of the issue, they try to one up each other on how they will dismantle the
surveillance state. I think asking your Representative their stand on this
issue as well as any one else who enters the race is a good start but also try
to get some sort of pledge that they will work across the isle with the other
party to get this done.

This will need at least two election cycles to be successful. Everyone in the
house is up for re-election every two years but the senate requires six for
everyone to go through the re-election process. I think with some luck, the
third senate election cycle might not be needed if enough momentum can be
attained. But I think to really succeed it will have to survive a filibuster
and possibly a presidential veto.

We can do this if we are willing to put aside our political differences, work
together and think long term.

------
llamataboot
I am wondering why we didn't see a /single/ large tech company release
something in support of this. Even something as simple as a press release...

------
guelo
If congress were to pass some law (over Obama's veto) limiting the
intelligence agencies, what is to stop the administration from coming up with
a secret interpretation of the new law that effectively ignored it? They are
already in violation of current law, as the author of the Patriot Act has
stated.

Democracy has been completely subverted at this point. We need impeachments
and new anti-secrecy laws.

~~~
krapp
If you don't trust the government to follow the law in the former case, why
would you trust them to follow anti-secrecy laws in the latter?

Either the system can possibly work or it can't, you can't say the process is
a sham then suggest a legislative solution.

------
marcamillion
Even though I don't have the time to do it, I have a feeling that if you
drilled down into the votes some more, you would likely see a
pattern/relationship re: authority.

i.e. those in higher authority would have voted it down (Boehner, Pelosi,
etc.) and those with less authority supported it. So the powerful preserving
their power, with the less powerful challenging it.

That alone can speak volumes about the potential for their power crumbling.
Boehner has been on the ropes recently with his caucus warning him to tread
carefully.

If that turns out to be the case, then the leadership has big problems. Both
in the House and the Whitehouse.

That could be good for the issue over the long-term....which is encouraging to
me as a "foreigner".

~~~
ars
If you're going come up with an interesting theory like that you almost have
an obligation to track it down definitely.

Otherwise you're just making an assumption, and drawing conclusions from it
without knowing if your assumption is right.

~~~
marcamillion
I know the feeling, but I figured I would just put it out there and let people
more versed at this stuff than I find the relationships, if any exist and let
us know.

~~~
ars
> and let people ...let us know.

That virtually never happens. You have to do the work yourself.

------
D9u
The bit about _"...not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative
process"_ illustrates the hypocrisy inherent to the ruling class.

They rarely hold themselves to the same standards which they set forth for the
proletariat.

------
tzs
The votes from members of the Permanent House Select Committee on Intelligence
were 2 yes, 21 no.

By party, that was among Democrats 2 yes, 8 no, and among Republicans 0 yes,
13 no.

------
coldcode
The tool who represents my district actually voted AYE. Maybe there is hope
for this body of morons.

------
darkmethod
Is this the will of the people?

~~~
paraxisi
Not yet, but it's getting closer.

~~~
meepmorp
Don't assume you're privy to the will of the people.

~~~
paraxisi
With >50% regularly in polls, I'd say it's a fairly safe bet.

~~~
meepmorp
Have a look at this poll by WashPost/ABC:

[http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1150a3SnowdenandSecuri...](http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1150a3SnowdenandSecurity.pdf)

A majority of those surveyed now think Snowden should be criminally charged
for his leaking and don't view the surveillance as an unjustified intrusion
into people's privacy; interestingly, more people thought it wasn't an
unjustified intrusion into their own privacy vs. the privacy of others.

It's just one poll, yeah, but don't assume you know the will of the people.

~~~
subsection1h
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the poll you linked to, the question
that's most relevant to Amash's amendment was the following:

    
    
        17. Do you think that the National Security Agency's surveillance of telephone
        call records and internet traffic does or does not intrude on some Americans'
        privacy rights?
    
        Does Intrude: 74%
        Does Not Intrude: 22%
        No Opinion: 4%

~~~
rayiner
It clearly does "intrude" whatever that means, the question is: does it
intrude illegally or unreasonably? The relevant chart is on page 2: 58% think
it's either not an intrusion or a justified intrusion, and 34% think it's an
unjustified intrusion.

------
clarky07
Really interesting thing here is that 12 people didn't vote, exactly the
margin of defeat. I wonder how many of them were leaning towards voting for
it, and how many of them were strong advised (coerced) to abstain.

------
rdl
It's really interesting looking at the people who voted against this -- Nancy
Pelosi _and_ Michelle Bachmann?

------
pteredactyl
Maybe its a Spectacle for hegelDialectic/divideConquer #pov

------
tlongren
I read the title as "Amish's Amendment". Wondering what the Amish did to
illicit such attention from the NSA.

~~~
krapp
Well, they are practically untrackable under the current surveillance
architecture, and they do have those strange beards...

------
evolve2k
Which way did Obama himself vote?

~~~
pawn
He didn't have to, because it didn't pass the House.

However, he's been vocally supporting spying, so it's assumed he would have
voted No on this bill.

------
pawrvx
Now you know who runs America.

~~~
AsymetricCom
Right, the ones we cannot criticize...

~~~
pawrvx
The downvotes just proves my point.

