
EFF Dismayed by House's Gutted USA Freedom Act - spenvo
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gutted-usa-freedom-act
======
WestCoastJustin
PBS Frontline is running a ~3 hour documentary, released in two parts, the
second installment was released today, of the entire post 9/11 NSA
surveillance episode, up to and including the Snowden leaks @
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-
sec...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/)

Well worth a watch.

~~~
samstave
So while this is fantastic - if you pay attention to the first part of it -
there is still a heavy dose of propaganda tied to the perception of how this
all came about - as if it was some surprise emergent behavior that is outside
anyone's expectation that this would have occurred.

As opposed to the reality that the whole thing is decades in the making and we
can track exactly who built this thing. (Hint: who build PNAC?)

~~~
tunap
Joe knows! Allow me to just... drop this here....

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995)

------
suprgeek
By most reports this bill was watered down on the express meddling of the
White house.

This is very unfortunate in that Senator Obama had clearly promised in his
pre-election speeches to explicitly push for what this bill was (somewhat)
trying to do. Watch this point-by-point:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vixVPE4LBAU#](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vixVPE4LBAU#)!

Now that he is in a position to do so, President Obama is fighting tooth-and-
nail to make this a toothless(!) bill.

Why?

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Why? Because... he's a politician?

~~~
chc
So was everyone else involved with the bill. That explanation is insufficient.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
The question was why did he say one thing then do another.

~~~
chc
No, the question was not that general. The question was, verbatim: "Now that
he is in a position to do so, President Obama is fighting tooth-and-nail to
make this a toothless(!) bill. Why?" Many other politicians did not fight this
bill tooth and nail, so that doesn't explain why Obama did.

------
misiti3780
Wouldnt be great if bills were edited in github or something analogous so you
could see who committed the gutting? Oh well, back to my ipython notebook.

~~~
hippee-lee
More than interesting. It would be a way to account what people say and what
they do.

~~~
karmelapple
What is the most serious attempt out there of trying this?

I would want a law saying all bills must be put through a system that can be
audited to see precisely who makes the changes.

And if it allows pull requests like GitHub, anyone could fork a bill, make a
change, and people could comment on the best proposed recordings.

I think this could honestly get people more involved in politics in a
productive way, rather than watching talking heads spout reactionary crystal
ball gazing on the 24 hour news networks.

------
ipsin
It would be interesting to trace the true lineage of this (or any) legislative
edit.

It has a smell if an outside source, as though our laws are not written by our
lawmakers.

~~~
ganeumann
An article on The Hill ([http://thehill.com/policy/technology/206686-privacy-
advocate...](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/206686-privacy-advocates-
pull-support-for-watered-down-usa-freedom)) says that the change was made at
the behest of the Obama administration:

"[A]fter moving through the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, where
it saw some changes but retained the support of privacy advocates, last minute
negotiations between House leadership and the Obama administration have left
the bill with weakened language when it comes to banning mass surveillance,
advocates say."

Disappointing on many levels.

~~~
pekk
Because we all know how the Tea Party-heavy House has done whatever Obama
wanted

~~~
hga
The House leadership loathes the "Tea Party" types with a burning passion,
e.g. along with the rest of the Republican establishment has made it very
clear they prefer a Democrat winning to a "Tea Party" type. And is ever ready
to cut a deal with Obama; there's no surprise here, especially with how much
power a House majority leadership team has.

~~~
pekk
This is a blatant lie. If you look at any actual survey data, the Tea Party is
strictly a wing of the Republican party and it has been nothing but good for
the political fortunes of the Republican party, which is extremely concerned
with what the Tea Party wants. Without the Tea Party, the Republicans would
not have had the House all these years.

~~~
hga
The two are not mutually exclusive (although if you can supply some evidence
this extreme concern with what the "Tea Party" wants translating into
substantive action by the national Republican Party I'm all ears).

If you're completely unaware of how the Republican establishment has been at
war with its base _LONG_ before the "Tea Party" (e.g. at least as far back as
Goldwater in 1964), you need to read up on the relevant history before making
such unproductive accusations.

Heck, how about brushing up on basic human psychology, since the concept of
ingratitude (in this case, of the Republican establishment) would appear to be
beyond your imagination.

------
dfc
If you want to see the differences between the version introduced in October
of 2013 and the most recent amended version see here:

[https://gist.github.com/dfc/1819eace21dc47358f38/revisions](https://gist.github.com/dfc/1819eace21dc47358f38/revisions)

Sadly I have never had much luck/success with the bill changes interface on
opencongress.org.

------
dan_bk
If such watered down "solutions" are what we get for just about the most
arcane form of surveillance (phone calls), then what are the "solutions" for
electronic surveillance (where the real surveillance happens) going to look
like?

------
justinph
With a name like the USA FREEDOM Act, how could you go wrong?

~~~
rodgerd
Much as a Democratic Peoples' Republic is likely to be none of the 3.

