
Section 215 Expires For Now - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/section-215-expires-now
======
mrweasel
>The law that the NSA used to authorize its collection of vast amounts of
information about the telephone calls of ordinary Americans is no more.

But the US can still snoop on my internet traffic if it happens to parse
through the US, because I'm not an American. For the majority of the world the
issue was never that the NSA spied on US citizens, but that they pretty spy on
everyone else as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think it should be illegal for the US, or any other
nation, to spy on its citizens, but it still only half the problem.

~~~
cm2187
In fact I have seen several articles in major european newspapers claiming
that big countries are going around restrictions on spying on their own
citizens by letting friendly countries do it, then exploit the data. I don't
know if there is any substance in these allegations but they seem plausible.

~~~
tehwalrus
If you have a proper Data Protection Act(s) passed, it should be illegal for
people in a country to obtain or use data stolen against the country's laws
elsewhere. Not ideal, but it would make illegal the circle of spying you
describe.

(not that the authorities, particularly here in the UK, give a flying F about
whether they're breaking existing laws...)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I hate playing devil's advocate on this topic, but here goes.

There are _real_ terrorists out there, and also agents of other states. These
folks need observation for a free country to be able to do the various things
it has to do. (Or, if they don't, it remains to be shown how such a setup
would effectively work).

I am completely against maintaining files on your own citizens which can then
be "mined" to find illegalities or improprieties later on. However -- that
doesn't mean that some folks shouldn't be watched. Heck, in a country with
250M people, the odds are that there are a heckuva lot of borderline crazy
people who should be monitored. I seriously hope the local constable has a
good idea of the top people in his area that he should keep an eye on.

I think we make a mistake when we focus on the NSA exclusively and talk as if
all data collection is wrong. We need a principle that allows for nuanced
collection -- not one-size-fits-all slogans.

So sure, I hope the other agencies are collecting info on folks in my country,
and I hope they share that information with my own country's security services
-- under the right circumstances and with the right protections in place. What
I don't want to see happen is the creation of a data pool where crimes can be
"discovered" that normally wouldn't matter.

(Really hated writing that, but somebody had to do it)

~~~
Nursie
It was never the case that _all_ collection was wrong.

However it is still wrong to just collect all the data you can on everyone,
even if everyone now doesn't include your own citizens.

>> So sure, I hope the other agencies are collecting info on folks in my
country, and I hope they share that information with my own country's security
services -- under the right circumstances and with the right protections in
place.

This is no different from having your own guys do it. Possibly it's worse.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I think, perhaps, the way out of this is a universal moratorium on the
commercial collection and retention of data, along with safeguards for data
mining by government agencies for criminal (not intelligence) purposes.

We must remember that as far as I can tell, governments have always wanted to
collect whatever they could about anybody -- citizen or not. I do not agree
with this, but the tendency is not limited to one government or another.
What's new in the equation is the vast numbers of commercial
applications/services that _also_ want to track your every move online in
order to keep you as a customer. It's this collection/retention of data that
governments are now tapping into. If nobody had kept anything past 2 or 3
days, there wouldn't be much to mine.

~~~
mike_hearn
The distinction you are looking for does not exist. The primary justification
for what the NSA is doing is crime: namely terrorism. The entire purpose of
the NSA is to find criminals, which is a problem, because the definition of
criminal can be anything the people in power want it to be.

For instance in the UK they're busy trying to crack down on "extremism". The
Prime Minister has given a speech about extremism where he actually said words
to the effect of "For too long we have been a passively tolerant society where
if you follow the law, we leave you alone". GCHQ is absolutely being mandated
to find extremists. It's merely the next chunk of the slippery slope that
started the moment the law changed to try and fight terrorists.

~~~
ptaipale
>The primary justification for what the NSA is doing is crime: namely
terrorism. The entire purpose of the NSA is to find criminals

Is it? My understanding is that NSA was founded for intelligence and counter-
intelligence purposes. Cold war. SIGINT. And that is what it still does,
although the capabilities of international terrorist/criminal organisations
have become comparable to the capabilities of many nation states.

CIA is also an intelligence agency, but human intelligence (HUMINT), not
signals intelligence. FBI, on the other hand, has a primary justification of
fighting crime. DEA is quite similar but focuses on drug crime, and ATF on
alcohol, tobacco and firearms. CSI conducts mass campaigns against people with
some intelligence in all countries, with sub-offices in CSI (NY) and CSI
(Miami).

(I'm not American, but have learned this much about the American three-letter
things, mostly from popular fiction.)

~~~
talmand
It could be interpreted that the NSA exists to catch criminals. Spying on the
US government is a crime in the eyes of the US government, no matter where you
conduct said spying. Counter-intelligence is an effort to catch those that spy
on the US government, despite the fact that is likely illegal in the country
of the person being spied upon. Although, what they do in terms of counter-
intelligence doesn't always turn into criminal proceedings.

~~~
ptaipale
I think that the role of counter-intelligence is most of the time not really
catch anyone, but to 1) get information from an adversary, and 2) develop
methods which allow to protect own information against adversaries.

~~~
talmand
Hence, my last sentence.

But I've always understood a part of counter-intelligence is to counter the
intelligence gathering of an adversary, or I suppose ally as well depending on
circumstances. Which is what you are saying with your second point. Therefore,
there is someone to catch doing it, just in a broad definition of the term.

------
dm2
"permit authorities to target "lone wolf" suspects with no connection to
specific terrorist groups, and make it easier to seize personal and business
records of suspects and their associates"

If I search lots of technology and military related topics, or do any system-
admin work, or use any privacy-enabling services (VPN / TOR), then my
friends/family/associates and myself would likely fall under those categories.

My concern is there should be a data-retention policy due to constantly
changing laws.

If 20 years from now I want to run for president, then all it would take is to
search for records in one of the many caches of NSA collected data that other
agency, state, local, and even foreign law-enforcement have collected over the
years. That would allow a large number of people to have the power to easily
find something that would distract me enough to pull me out of the race, such
as inappropriate text-messages/emails that a cheating spouse sent in the past.

~~~
sparaker
Keeping a log for 20 years for each and every person is practically impossible
at the moment, regardless of how advanced you think to seem technology is.
Storage is not free and i think its stupid to keep tracking everything without
a reason. If you keep logging on everything in the hopes that you may find a
connection or something of that sort in the future, you'll need a lot more
people to go through that sort of stuff to begin with.

~~~
tdicola
Don't underestimate how deep the pockets are of government defense funds. The
NSA has a gigantic datacenter in Utah that's estimated to be storing data on
the exabyte order of magnitude (thousands of petabytes).
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center)

edit: Even if they only have 1 exabyte of storage, that's enough to keep 3.3
gigabytes of data for every single person in America (~300 million). I would
wager that's more than enough to store the text from everyone's email for many
years.

~~~
vidarh
In fact, 3.3GB is also enough to store about 4 hours worth of speech
recordings per day for a year for every single person using the best available
compression. Double that since you don't need both sides of the call, and
consider that the average amount of time spent on the phone is substantially
less than 8h, and they can already store full voice for all US calls for many
years in an exabyte.

Given that the 1 exabyte is a low order estimate given the size of the Utah
data centre, you have to wonder just exactly what they are actually storing or
planning to store there. If someone had access to it (and I'm not saying I
think the NSA do), the site is physically big enough that you could fit
sufficient storage to keep years worth of voice recordings of the total global
phone call volume.

~~~
filoeleven
It is also known that NSA uses speech-recognition software, making voice
recordings easily searchable.

[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/05/nsa-speech-
rec...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/05/nsa-speech-recognition-
snowden-searchable-text/)

------
cinquemb
Ha…

"All of this political drama neglects a reality which has been pointed out by
an earlier CounterPunch essay.[0] The majority of the NSA’s mass interception
is sanctioned by other laws. To be precise Section 702 of the FISA Amendments
Act of 2008 and Executive Order 12333. It’s likely that congress is fixated on
Section 215 because politicians view it as an “easy win” that both panders to
voters and winks at spies. Flanked by a blitz of press coverage lawmakers can
brag to voters about fighting Big Brother without really altering the
surveillance apparatus itself."[1]

[0] [http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/05/the-usa-freedom-
act-d...](http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/05/the-usa-freedom-act-doesnt-
end-bulk-data-collection/print)

[1] [http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/08/will-appeals-court-
ru...](http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/08/will-appeals-court-ruling-
really-stop-nsa-bulk-phone-data-collection/print)

~~~
bradleyjg
At least section 702 is set to eventually sunset, in 2017. Section 214 was
made permanent.
[http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section213.html#214](http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section213.html#214)
[https://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/214.php](https://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/214.php)

[http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/05/without-the-usa-
freedom-a...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/05/without-the-usa-freedom-act-
nsa-could-resume-bulk-collection-even-if-patriot-act-provisions-expire/)

"The section 215 phone records program was modeled on an earlier, Internet
metadata bulk collection program that began after September 11. The FISC
approved the Internet metadata program under the pen register/trap and trace
(PR/TT) provisions of FISA – as amended by section 214 of the Patriot Act. The
Internet metadata program – known as the PR/TT program – had serious
compliance problems because it was difficult for the NSA reliably to segregate
Internet metadata from Internet content. Still, the FISC continued to approve
the PR/TT program, with modifications, until the NSA itself chose to end the
program in 2011.

As a result, the FISC’s orders approving bulk metadata collection remain a
viable interpretation of the PR/TT provisions of FISA and would have
precedential value in any effort to resume bulk collection, whether of
Internet or telephony metadata. The PR/TT provisions of FISA are not limited
to Internet metadata. If anything, they apply more naturally to traditional
telephony metadata, as they cover “dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling”
information. Section 214, unlike section 215, is not going to expire tomorrow
– it was made permanent in 2005."

~~~
late2part
We should work to sunset these earlier.

------
0xCMP
Don't forget why it happened either. Rand Paul fought to make sure it didn't
pass.

~~~
wyclif
Not a single mention of Rand Paul by EFF. Is EFF stingy with credit, or do
they just whitewash any mention of Paul out of Patriot Act subversion stories
because he's not a Democrat?

EDIT: No, really. Serious question.

~~~
schoen
He's mentioned (and quoted) a ton on the @EFFLive Twitter feed from today
(operated by EFF staff to provide live coverage of events).

[https://twitter.com/EFFLive](https://twitter.com/EFFLive)

Also mentioned and quoted repeatedly by @EFF Twitter feed during last week's
Senate debate prior to the recess.

[https://twitter.com/EFF](https://twitter.com/EFF)

~~~
briandear
Still a Twitter mention is hardly the same as mentioning it prominently in the
announcement. If it were Rand Paul fighting the EFF, it's almost certain that
he would be mentioned above the fold. I am also interested in why Hillary's
pro-NSA position hasn't been discussed more by EFF. Have they ever criticized
a prominent Democrat? Hillary has been a big NSA supporter as well as a
customer during her time as Secretary of State. Obama is obviously a huge NSA
advocate given he signed Patriot Act extensions.. Not a single word from the
Hillary campaign about privacy. Of course, privacy and transparency aren't
exactly Clintonian. What's sad is that large numbers of the tech community are
still going to raise money and vote for her, regardless of the issues.

------
Animats
If you work for a telco, and you are currently cooperating with NSA by
providing them data, you probably just lost legal authorization to do so. NSA
connections should be disabled unless your corporate general counsel instructs
you otherwise in writing and takes responsibility for that act.

------
aburan28
Why do people think that surveillance is going to thwart real terrorist
attacks? Terrorists are not stupid. Bin Laden stopped using his satellite
phone in 1999 and the NSA did not intercept a single piece of audio intercept
data from Bin Laden ever again. The 9/11 hijackers were mostly engineers and
barely even touched technology. HUMINT is the only way to catch real
terrorists IMO.

~~~
sliverstorm
Hypothetically speaking enough surveillance plus really advanced compute could
find criminals indirectly. As a totally fictional example for illustrative
purposes, recall Batman's "cell phone sonar" device.

You don't have to touch technology to leave a footprint. Your footprints are
just harder to find.

Edit: I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just saying "you can't track
terrorists who don't use technology" is false.

~~~
flycaliguy
It also indirectly enables criminality by eliminating people's ability to be
anonymous sources to police or the press. Along the same lines, it grants
anybody with privileged (or unauthorized) access to surveillance data the
opportunity for any number of truly maniacal illegal acts.

------
mercurialshark
Section 215 concerns both foreign and domestic signals, allowing for the
collection of metadata. Section 702 focuses on the content of foreign
intelligence. While 215 is debatable, 702 serves a distinctly different
purpose. IF your concern is domestic surveillance, particularly sharing
metadata that originates in the US with law enforcement, than this can be
considered a win. IF you think collection of foreign intelligence should be
limited, which of course is in the US's interest, then you are out of luck.

Considering the majority of people say faulty intelligence is to blame for the
Iraq war, it's difficult for me to encourage _less_ intelligence surrounding
foreign intelligence gathering. But I'm partial, as an American who prefers to
know who and what and why we are actually fighting. It's not like we can take
everyone's word for it.

~~~
zanny
> faulty intelligence is to blame for the Iraq war, it's difficult for me to
> encourage less intelligence surrounding foreign intelligence gathering

How about - how would you rather spend your money, spying on foreigners living
in destitution, or fixing our roads? The international spy network the US
maintains is probably a paltry drop in the bucket of the preposterous defense
budget in this country, but honestly anything to curtail that black hole of
taxpayer dollars is a win in my book.

If we weren't destroying the lives of millions around the globe with our
imperialism, we wouldn't have enemies to suicide bomb us with planes to
require massive spy networks to try to catch American dissenters planning to
commit jihad against us. The military industrial complex only exists insofar
as the American people are complacent to being global police forcing their
will upon anyone who does not fall in line with what the US wants. And that is
after we already have trade sanctions that can decimate countries overnight.

This isn't 1970 anymore. We don't need to have a dick waving contest with the
next largest nuclear arsenal trying to ruin the lives of billions of people in
a juvenile game to show who is the coolest kid, whose god is the best, or
whose economic model should rule the world. Maybe its time to just back the
fuck off and take our tendrils out of every nation on Earth for once and maybe
try to be good to our fellow man.

~~~
sliverstorm
_how would you rather spend your money, spying on foreigners living in
destitution, or fixing our roads?_

Oh good, binary arguments.

 _If we weren 't destroying the lives of millions around the globe with our
imperialism, we wouldn't have enemies to suicide bomb us..._

So what about every country in Europe being suicide bombed? Are they just
complicit?

Your notion that if we play nice and mind our own business, we will be left
alone, is not really borne out by history.

I'm not saying there are enemies around every corner, but you can never please
everyone so we will always have enemies.

~~~
mike_hearn
* So what about every country in Europe being suicide bombed? Are they just complicit?*

The countries with the worst problems with Islamic extremism are the ones most
closely allied with the US war machine. The UK and France, for example.
Consider the smaller eastern states, Scandinavian countries etc: much less of
an issue for them.

Usually when you dig into the motives of Islamic people engaging in political
murders it's triggered by western wars. E.g. the Charlie Hebdo attackers went
after cartoonists, probably because they were easy targets. But interviews
with them showed their path to radicalisation started with seeing what was
going on at Abu Ghraib.

~~~
robin_reala
Not to derail your point, but
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Stockholm_bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Stockholm_bombings)
and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Copenhagen_shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Copenhagen_shootings)

~~~
mike_hearn
From the first article,

 _About ten minutes before the explosions, a threatening email was sent to the
Swedish Security Service and the Swedish news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå
(TT).[9] It referred to the presence of Swedish troops in Afghanistan and
Swedish artist Lars Vilks ' drawings of Muhammad as a roundabout dog:[3] "Now
your children, daughters and sisters will die in the same way our brothers and
sisters die. Our actions will speak for themselves._

.... so less of an issue but not zero of an issue.

For the second article, I concede that it doesn't mention any political
motivation (I don't count purely religious motivation like "i hate cartoons"
as political). Although, as the suspects ended up dead, it may be that there
was one and we would never know.

------
drawkbox
It is all theatre. We've moved from bulk collection to bulk receiving that
collection.

Think about it, it won't ever end. It is like a regular person going back to
before Google/search engines. The way we think now includes that path.

So in the intelligence agencies, it has been a way of life for 15 years. The
have an internal "google" if you will, that has all of our information at any
time. It has become the way they work and 'investigate'. It is forever part of
their path.

In another 5 years, _which the USA Freedom Act extends section 215 to 2019_
[1], the intel agencies will forget how to investigate in real, old school
judicial warrant driven surveillance with oversight. Judges have been worked
out of the system and it is too easy to investigate with these tools for it to
end.

This is also not for terrorism, nearly 99% of all inquires for Patriot Act
sneak and peeks have been used for domestic crime [2]. I am sure 215 is being
abused in ways we won't know for years because there is lack of oversight and
NSA directors openly lied to Congress before for _national security_.

This is a domestic crime tool, not only for terrorism. It would be nice if
people in power were just honest about this but they shroud it in terrorism,
'Patriot' Acts, bills called 'USA Freedom' and more disrespectful ways to the
US brand. We should require all bills be named by number or by what they are,
these would be 'Domestic & Foreign Surveillance Act I and II' or SB/HB
2015[some number]. That way we can debate on merit not some doublespeak name.

These tools will eventually be used for corporate espionage and market
manipulation, it is too useful not to. Local police will be able to get all
your records, maybe even connected businessmen and bankers.

If you want change, politics is not the way, it is cooked. The country runs on
money and markets. If you want to change something, come up with a market
solution that can get to the point where it is big enough to cause change.

[1]
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2048/text/ih#li...](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2048/text/ih#link=VII_705_a_~T1&nearest=H3970213DCD8B4A7C9D2AC368B1ADFDCA)

[2] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/peekaboo-i-see-you-
gov...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/peekaboo-i-see-you-government-
uses-authority-meant-terrorism-other-uses)

~~~
arca_vorago
"This is a domestic crime tool, not only for terrorism."

Indeed, the primary realpolitik answer that you wont hear from anybody in the
beltway till theyve had a few and have a cigar in their hand is that
technology has so changed the landscape of threats and potential threats that
actions that used to require nation state financial, logistal, etc support can
now be accomplished by a single non-state actor, hence, we really "need" to
collect it all.

The reason this scares the intel community so much is because generally, with
some exceptions, if a foreign country sends actors over we tend to know about
it due to how deep our tendrils are and the fact that we are setting ourselves
up as the main repository of data for even foreign govs to access. (The point
being we know what they access and look at), but if all of a sudden we feel
like it could be anybody then you get an intel community thats in
hypervigilante mode and that mode will wear you out fast, its a mentally
degraded state for anything other than actual fighting.

im guessing some modifications to the way threats are quantitavely measured is
in order, but no one really wants to do that these days. Ive heard rumors over
the past few years of an increasing trend to get rid of all the salty old
greybeards who tell truth to power... What we will end up with is a beltway
full of people who are either too naive to know better and just tout the line,
or a bunch of kissass mortage-payers who would condone genocide if it made
sure their kids go to a ivy league college. Which essentially what William
Binneys says happened when they scrapped his lower cost program designed to at
least attempt to protect privacy in favor of a billion dollar blank check for
another less effective solution.

The bottom line is that by attempting to collect it all before they fully
understand how to parse the data, they actually weakened American security in
all its various forma.

I am curious though when you say come up with a market solution. The problem
is that markets simply dont work like you were taught in college economics.
For example, the market profitted from the weakening of American security
because the more expensive program put more dollars into a few VA counties. I
would like some sort of example of how the markets will ever be anything other
than opposed to actual progress if it makes them less money.

Therein lies the problem, weve allowed our own "representative governemnt" to
become completely detached from the people due to their attachment to
"markets".

Does anybody in DC even remember what their oaths were anymore? to protect and
defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA from enemies foreign
AND DOMESTIC...

Id say our real enemies, the ones threatening the Constitution (as opposed to
safety) are domestic, and they wear suits and ties and not burkahs, and
quantifiably so.

~~~
hackinthebochs
>Does anybody in DC even remember what their oaths were anymore? to protect
and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA from enemies
foreign AND DOMESTIC...

Every time I hear Obama say "my number one job as president is to keep
Americans safe" I can't help but cringe and wonder what the hell happened to
us. These oaths truly don't mean anything anymore, if they ever did.

~~~
rayiner
To be fair, the whole reason we got rid of the Articles of Confederation and
instituted a strong central government with strong President was the previous
federal government's inability to put down domestic insurrection.

People talk about Thomas Jefferson and the tree of liberty but the fact is
that TJ lost the ideological debate of his time.

~~~
arca_vorago
Actually, though Jefferson may have lost the debate, I think that history has
proven him correct.

[https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/content-
im...](https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/content-
images/1027p1.web_.jpg)

"I learn with pleasure that republican principles are predominant in your
state, because I conscientiously believe that governments founded in them are
most friendly to the happiness of the people at large; and especially of a
people so capable of self government as ours. I have been ever opposed to the
party, so falsely called federalists, because I believe them desirous of
introducing, into our government, authorities hereditary or otherwise
independant [sic] of the national will. these always consume the public
contributions and oppress the people with labour & poverty."

Indeed, the very issue that we are discussing is the fact that the authorities
have become independent of the national will (or have otherwise subverted the
national will).

Also, there is much debate about why the Articles were replaced, and I don't
really like your simplistic view of the matter, it was a very complex time and
arguments for and against were extremely varied, but your point is taken.

I would also venture to say that it is the lack of accountability for those
who violate the Constitution in all three branches that has further encouraged
a slide down the slippery path where far too many people want to imagine the
Constitution as a "living document" instead of a static reference only
modifiable my amendment, as it truly should be.

I would also point out that I consider the SCOTUS compromised now too.

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the
Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and
instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented
against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” - Thomas
Jefferson

Also a side note is that the only oath I have ever sworn was to the defence of
the Constitution, so I am biased. (I think in a good way)

~~~
rayiner
> Actually, though Jefferson may have lost the debate, I think that history
> has proven him correct.

The original point was about Obama saying his top priority is keeping America
safe. Whether or not TJ was right goes to what _should be_ his top priority,
not _what it is_ under the document that defines the scope of his
responsibilities.

> I would also venture to say that it is the lack of accountability for those
> who violate the Constitution in all three branches that has further
> encouraged a slide down the slippery path where far too many people want to
> imagine the Constitution as a "living document" instead of a static
> reference only modifiable my amendment, as it truly should be.

That's a double-edged sword, because a strict textual interpretation of the
4th amendment doesn't get you where you need to be re: surveillance. Remember,
the whole "expectation of privacy" is a "living Constitution" bolt-on. What
the 4th amendment's text actually lays out is basically a protection against
what would be trespass if done by a private person:
[http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/...](http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/144/searches-
and-seizures). All of the things explicitly mentioned in the amendment are
things in which people have property interests. You have no property interests
in the records AT&T keeps about what you do online--extending the 4th
amendment to that requires reliance on the whole "expectation of privacy"
framework that simply did not exist when the Constitution was written.

> “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when
> the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates
> and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or
> invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

You're begging the question. What is the "spirit manifested in the debates?"
55 delegates debated the provisions of the document, and they had 55 points of
view. Whose "spirit" should we give credit to? The literal text is the best
evidence of the compromise that actually came out of that process.

------
ScottBurson
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

~~~
wyclif
Thank you, Edward Snowden and Rand Paul. FTFY.

------
hias
I guess now that it ran out something very bad will happen and after that the
section or something worse will be active again and will run forever. ("we
can't cancel it, remember the time we didnt have it and something bad
happenend?")

------
billions
The Nuclear Age is over. When the major powers have strong trade and business
agreements, leverage is applied incrementally rather than explosively. That
said, welcome to the Software Wars era. When country A can receive significant
financial leverage with a small hack of country B's market, they will. The US
needs a world class software defense 'army'. However, you don't point that gun
at your own people. Neither should spying be done on allies if it threatens
existing partnerships. The hacking 'arms race' is just getting started.

~~~
Intermernet
The Nuclear Age is _far_ from over. If anything, we've just gone from the
"only big players can afford them" to the "we don't really know who has them"
stage.

There were reports of the Russian Mafia having control over nuclear material.
[1] The collapse of the iron curtain caused a wonderful climate for well
funded criminal elements to get their hands on all sorts of nasty stuff. This
is documented, but not really discussed that much. I've read that many
governments are actually a lot less worried about the Russian mafia having
this material than they are about North Korea having these weapons, as
organised crime doesn't really stand to profit very much from a nuclear stand-
off. Apparently Mossad even purchased some of it to "stop it falling into the
hands of Islamic and other terror groups" [2]

You can't put that genie back in it's bottle. The Nuclear Age won't be over
for a while yet, it's just in a quiet phase.

[1]:
[https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/articles/volume16/iss...](https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/articles/volume16/issue4/Mirsky16U.Pa.J.Int%27lBus.L.749%281995%29.pdf)

[2]:
[http://www.rense.com/general44/maf.htm](http://www.rense.com/general44/maf.htm)

------
mindslight
This is like the one brief beautiful moment above the clouds in The Matrix
(Revolutions).

 _One_ political event from the past _fourteen_ years that I can look at and
go "something fundamental changed for the better". Finally _one_
representative actually declaring that this system is bullshit and holding
firm with spite, instead of the constant compromise and corruption. Finally
laws are simply _removed_ instead of augmented with "fixes" that just
rearrange deck chairs to make a different group profit even more.

Not that I have much hope of it staying this way for long. Even the EFF here
is preemptively giving in and saying "USA Freedom" will be passed, because
anything else would be _too wild_ against the status quo (there's that
corrupromise again!).

But at least there's this one brief beautiful moment to enjoy before going
back to writing code, the only way for freedom to survive the infopocalypse.

------
ck2
They will replace it with something far worse when the "news reporters" and
the general public aren't paying attention.

We know to look for and hate the "patriot act" they will come up with a
"puppies and kittens" name that you will look like an idiot to say you hate.

------
krick
I can understand eff celebrating this entirely symbolical event, but cannot
understand celebration in the comments. "Aren't allowed to do (for now)",
"cannot do" and "won't do" are different things, and only the last two do
matter.

------
caseysoftware
Let me say it explicitly:

Ending collection does not change anything.

So they can't connect? So what? So GCHQ (Britain's NSA) does the collection
and then shares it with the NSA. Problem solved.

It's the _storage_ of this information which should be stopped.

------
pforpineapple
"Senate rules allow a final vote, which only needs a simple majority of 51, to
occur early Tuesday morning" I am not certain it'll go through. What do you
think ?

------
late2part
Hoooray! Now, the real fight begins!

------
chx
The EFF felt it needed to mention it's fighting this since 2006 but they left
out the name of one Edward Snowden. I feel this is a dick move.

