
Bills Introduced by Congress Fail to Fix Unconstitutional NSA Spying - Libertatea
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/bills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying
======
drdaeman
Decreeing that governments should not try to infiltrate their citizen's (and
not only their) privacy is like decreeing that terrorists should not possess
explosives. The point is, if they'd find a possibility to do that, they still
will do whatever's in their interests.

IMHO, the only reasonable option is to embrace the inevitable and explicitly
allow any wiretapping (on any level, for anyone just because they can - not
only for TLAs and law enforcement; with a several year of grace period, so the
everyone could prepare themselves) and force the world to secure their
communications and not rely on promises that nobody would peek at them.

------
bionerd
This is great news but will it really force certain agencies and powerful
circles to stop what they've been doing all this time in secret? And if not,
what could?

------
frou_dh
No dice. They've taken the cellophane off of that gargantuan data centre, so
it's too late to return it for a refund.

------
Daniel_Newby
This whole dispute is obsolete. Pretty soon the 3D printers will be cranking
out isotope separators. Afterwards everyone will be part of a total
surveillance society, by process of natural selection. We should consider this
a practice run for learning how to build a transparent society that works.

------
teeja
We don't need to change the constitution. We need to insist that the 4th
amendment be honored immediately. We are not at war.

There must be a full, open Congressional investigation (like Church) which
pries open the so-called secret interpretation of the law (an idea which is
utterly anti-American). We must subsequently have an informed discussion about
how to do what needs doing to for real (not fear-driven) protection of
citizens, while reversing the invasion of privacy clearly forbidden by the
4th, restoring explicit warrants backed by clear and unambiguous evidence.

This is a time to form a hard, hard line. If we do not at this time, then we
should expect further dismantling of the Constitutional rights that millions
of Americans have fought and lost their limbs for. I do not usually talk like
this, but this is an extraordinary and dangerous time in our nation's history,
one ripe for further abuse. Our Congresspeople need to recognize that their
jobs are unquestionably on the line if they don't fix this situation.

~~~
Vivtek
I thought we agreed we're at war until people stop using terrorism. That's
what the President told me, anyway.

------
snarfy
If it's unconstitutional, we don't need new laws to fix it. The existing laws
(the constitution) need to be enforced. It's a failure of the judiciary, not
the legislative branch.

~~~
rayiner
You can't take it for granted that it is, in fact, unconstitutional, just
because the EFF says so. The EFF has its interpretation of the 4th amendment,
just like the ACLU. They take very expansive views of what those amendment
means. Taking narrower views is not a "failure of the judiciary." It's
disagreement over a document that can legitimately be interpreted in different
ways.

~~~
comrade_ogilvy
Furthermore, what holds the Executive in check is the combined vigilance of
Congress and the Judiciary.

The Judiciary must show reasonable deference to Congress when it comes to
defining such things as "due process". If Congress chooses to create a due
process in which it seems very easy for the Executive to get its way (e.g. the
FISA court), on what legal basis is a sitting judge supposed to stand in the
way? Unless it is completely obvious by existing legal precedent, a federal
judge might rightly suppose it is the job of the Appellate and SCOTUS to
define any new yardsticks.

FISA courts, PRISM, NSA, drone assassinations,... Congress holds in their
hands the power to define the terms of the debate. That they choose not to is
simply because the minority and majority leadership in both houses of Congress
more greatly fear having to explain their own position to the American people,
than they fear any particular arguable abuse by this president.

------
dragontamer
The crux of this article is that these Senators don't know how to fix the
problem. That is far from correct.

Why? Senators Wyden and Udall are part of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
They have full access to the secret discussions going on, and the practical
implementation of them.

They are fully briefed on these issues, and hold clearances, as well as hold
the power to investigate Top Secret America. Instead of assuming ignorance on
Wyden and Udall's part... perhaps the EFF should be analyzing their proposals.

~~~
Vivtek
Instead of assuming ignorance, we should simply assume intent. But I think
ignorance probably is sufficiently explanatory - access to snake oil sales
pitches doesn't ensure informed decisions.

~~~
dragontamer
Wyden and Udall have been consistently against these programs damn near a
decade, and have been trying to reform section 215 of the Patriot act the
whole time. Wyden and Udall have not had to "change" their opinion before or
after this controversy, they've been consistently against it the whole time.

Their reforms are the same that they've been pitching for many years, its just
that no one has been listening. If you notice, they are the ones who are
forcing the NSA to correct their public statements.

[http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-and-
udall-t...](http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-and-udall-to-
general-alexander-nsa-must-correct-inaccurate-statement-in-fact-sheet)

They don't just listen to the NSA, they also _correct_ the mistakes the NSA
makes in public.

~~~
Vivtek
Yeah, I see that. But have they really drawn public attention to it? No.
They've gone with the flow because they somehow agree that if the American
public knows the law that governs them, we will all be killed in our beds by
terrorists.

I have very little respect for people with the access and clout that Wyden and
Udall have who fail to actually take any action outside their little box
despite their probable understanding that this whole thing is undermining
American democracy.

And that's why I don't feel bad about ascribing intent. Sure, they want to
introduce mild reform without breaking any rules or expectations - but they
want to keep their perky little jobs as opposed to taking an actual stand.

Why haven't they proposed any legislation addressing the fact that our
policymakers are sworn to secrecy so they can't get a second opinion about the
line they're being fed? Why haven't they brought any of this to the public for
debate? Because they actually think that - except for a few tweaks - it is a
_good_ thing for America to be run by secret bodies using secret policies and
judged only by secret courts. They have acclimated to a two-tier system of
justice, one for people with pull and another for you and me.

~~~
dragontamer
[http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/amendment-
re...](http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/amendment-requires-
government-to-end-practice-of-secretly-interpreting-law)

Keep an eye on the date of these articles.

Lets be frank here: Wyden has been _ignored_. He's been writing and trying to
get the word out publicly for a very long time. The only shame is on _you_ for
not knowing Politics, and not supporting Wyden's cause sooner.

It is not too late however to support Wyden or his proposals, if thats what
you want. But your bastardized claims of Wyden only demonstrate how ignorant
you are of American Politics.

But whatever, you can just go ahead and ignore me. Or perhaps you can listen
up to what politicians in Washington say for once.

But if you decide to ignore politicians, and pass judgement upon them anyway,
well... that just makes you an ignorant dumbass. So go on and assume everyone
is against you on all matters, I'm sure that will play well for your sanity.

------
yuhong
I think a Constitutional Amendment should be considered too.

~~~
lukifer
Would a bill to explicitly define the 4th to include data storage have
sufficient force of law? Or would that violate separation of powers and get
thrown out by SCOTUS?

At any rate, given the tepid reaction of Congress, I don't see an amendment
happening anytime soon. Hell, at this point the ideological tribalism is so
bad, I'm not sure they could agree on an amendment outlawing the kicking of
puppies.

~~~
avar
Once you change the constitution it can't be thrown out be the SCOTUS by
definition. They can interpret constitutional law or declare law
unconstitutional, they can't blatantly ignore the constitution (well, in
theory...).

In short, the facility to reverse supreme court decisions is a constitutional
amendment.

~~~
jessriedel
lukifer is asking about whether a normal bill (law) would be sufficient, as
opposed to yuhong's suggestions of a constitutional amendment.

------
motters
Fixing American laws is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't make me
as a non-American feel any more confident about using US-based internet
services.

~~~
eli
Are there any examples of countries that have the means to spy on other
countries but choose not to?

~~~
EthanHeilman
The US between the years 1929-~1935. The closing of the American Black Chamber
to the opening and secret executive permission for the military to break the
law and steal communications for "training" purposes.

~~~
mpyne
Which led to the famous Henry Stimson quote that "gentlemen do not read each
others' mail".

Luckily for the U.S., they stopped acting like gentlemen in time for the
Battle of Midway.

~~~
EthanHeilman
It's the difference between a peace footing and a war footing. The US broke
off the lever that switches between the two.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
Nuclear physicists broke off the lever. The intelligence community has been
holding things together with duct tape ever since, successfully so far.

We should seriously ask whether the NSA is broken before we try fixing it. If
a mushroom cloud over Indianapolis is a 10 on the civil liberty infringement
scale, many people would rank domestic surveillance as a 0.0001.

~~~
Vivtek
Right, because nuclear terrorism is what the NSA is looking for. Nice
rhetorical posturing there, big guy.

~~~
mpyne
Well, the threat of a dirty bomb or actual nuclear payload being smuggled into
a U.S. city by a terrorist group _really is_ something the NSA is watching
for. It's just not the only thing they're watching for.

~~~
Vivtek
I wish they'd been watching for fraud on the part of the biggest banks, which
has done America a lot more damage than a smuggled bomb. Putting it in
Indianapolis is rank pandering to the Tea Party, though. Back in 2003, my dad
(also in (rural) Indiana) professed to be in fear of Saddam Hussein. I told
him at the time that even if Saddam Hussein actually had any way to affect
him, he'd never heard of Indiana.

And yet it's the heartland running on sheer terror to demand safety instead of
their liberty.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
Indianapolis was the site of a full-dress-rehersal nuclear interdiction field
exercise. It is also a literary allusion to a well-known science fiction story
in which Indianapolis is sacrificed to an alien nuclear attack.

Saddam Hussein could have trivially smashed the economy of Indiana as part of
larger dsruptions of the world economy. The actual error is that by 2003 he
was utterly deterred. Gulf War I taught him all about staying on his little
patch of sand.

This discussion contains only the political partisanship you projected onto
it. You need to learn that clear strategic analysis often contradicts or
supports political dogma _by coincidence_.

~~~
Vivtek
Bah. It was in Indianapolis for the reasons I mentioned in my post - pandering
and terror. That you now cite it as a reason to worry about Indianapolis is
rather circular. As to your citing science fiction, I'd like to remind you
that Close Encounters of the Third Kind took place in Indiana as well - should
I be watching the skies?

This discussion contains all the political "partisanship" it needs, son. Get
over yourself before you presume to tell me what I need to learn.

