
The USA Freedom Act: What's to Come and What You Need to Know - sinak
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/usa-freedom-act-week-whats-come-and-what-you-need-know
======
calinet6
This page, content-wise, doesn't appear to have a clear message.

EFF -- if you're listening -- it would be great to stake a very clear position
on this bill at the very top of your statement.

Something like "We urge you to support the USA Freedom Act."

Since neither the name of the bill itself, nor anything on the page, makes it
clear that the "Freedom Act" is an act _against_ the digital surveillance of
US citizens, someone who had never heard of the Act, or someone skimming the
page, would not gain a meaningful conclusion.

I was unsure at first whether to support or decry the bill, and heck, the name
even sounds like "Patriot Act." The title of the page itself does no help: it
paints an ominous message in a severe tone.

Marketing: it's important. Be clear.

"The signals we give—yes, or no, or maybe— should be clear; the darkness
around us is deep."

William Stafford --
[http://williamstafford.org/spoems/pages/ritual.html](http://williamstafford.org/spoems/pages/ritual.html)

~~~
ma2rten
The first sentences are:

"The USA Freedom Act, the leading contender for NSA reform, is set for a vote
this week. The bill has some problems, but is a major step forward for
surveillance reform. That's why we're asking you to call your Senator and urge
them to support the USA Freedom Act."

How much more clear do you want it?

~~~
saraid216
The HN title, which is all I've read so far, leads me to believe this is
another Patriot Act. Clicking through, it appears this is also the title of
the article, so it's hardly HN trying to editorialize.

Since I have enough information to determine that I don't want the Freedom Act
to pass, why would I click through to the article?

~~~
worklogin
>The HN title, which is all I've read so far

So you didn't read the article, which was the original complaint of the root
comment. If you can't take 30 seconds to read about legislation that could
significantly impact the power of the security state to spy on the American
public, you're not doing your duty as a citizen.

~~~
saraid216
Nothing in the title indicated that it was about legislation that could
significantly impact the power of the security state to spy on the American
public. I thought Obama was legalizing torture.

So why would I read it?

------
apendleton
The bill isn't all it's cracked up to be. It creates new legal basis for some
surveillance activities that are arguably illegal, immunizes companies who
participate in mass surveillance, and (most problematically), reauthorizes the
Patriot Act. See: [http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/09/15/sunlight-
ellsb...](http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/09/15/sunlight-ellsberg-
pccc-tenth-amendment-center-and-others-oppose-the-senate-version-of-the-usa-
freedom-act/)

~~~
Rapzid
I've noticed this quite a bit recently.. Maybe I'm just older and it has being
going on forever. Bills on the surface that look like they are accomplishing
what you want, but when you read between the lines they actually give the nod
to stuff you don't want to be happening at all.

Secret courts? Advocate. Now secret courts are more OK because apparently we
reviewed them and decided they are fine with an advocate. This just cements
the status quo into our system.

~~~
coldpie
Rome wasn't built in a day. Legislation is a series of compromises. Think of
it more as moving down the field towards your goal against the opposite team,
instead of just teleporting there. Specifically, this bill makes phone spying
much more onerous, and critically increases transparency which will
immediately curtail abuses and fuel further debate. This isn't the last word
on the topic.

~~~
marcosdumay
> This isn't the last word on the topic.

Are you sure about that? Because once such law get effective, replacing it
will read like an admission of failure to everybody that helped it pass.

------
colordrops
Wait, why is a bill even needed? Aren't current laws and the constitution
itself already enough? If they are breaking the law now, why should we believe
they won't disregard the Freedom Act?

~~~
mcherm
Because there are people of good faith who work at the NSA. They have been
told by their losses that the programs they are implementing have been
reviewed and are perfectly legal. If Congress makes a clear statement on the
matter then that fig leaf will no longer apply.

------
bgentry
I don't think the EFF has adequately answered the concerns raised by Marcy
Wheeler about the risks and weaknesses of this bill:
[https://www.emptywheel.net/2014/11/12/why-i-dont-support-
usa...](https://www.emptywheel.net/2014/11/12/why-i-dont-support-usa-freedom-
act/)

~~~
sinak
If I'm not mistaken, this is EFF's latest analysis of the bill, as well as
their justification for supporting:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/understanding-new-
usa-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/understanding-new-usa-freedom-
act-questions-concerns-and-effs-decision-support)

The bill isn't perfect, but it'll mean that the government collects less
information on innocent people, there'll be greater transparency, and an
advocate for citizen privacy in the FISA court. Beyond that, it's the most
likely vehicle for NSA reform. We're unlikely to see anything stronger if this
doesn't pass. And it seems like a better bet than trying to push for Section
215 to sunset next year.

~~~
bgentry
As per the article I linked, it also likely nullifies the Klayman case, a case
which could very likely turn out to have an even bigger effect than this bill.

~~~
cinquemb
Some background to those not familiar from Wikipedia[0]:

~Filing~

 _" In Klayman I, the plaintiffs, subscribers of Verizon Wireless, brought
suit against the NSA, the Department of Justice, Verizon Communications,
President Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General, and
General Keith B. Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency.[5]
The plaintiffs alleged that the government is conducting a "secret and illegal
government scheme to intercept vast quantities of domestic telephonic
communications" and that the program violates First, Fourth and Fifth
Amendment and exceeds statutory authority granted by Section 215.[5] In
Klayman II, the plaintiffs sued the same government defendants and in
addition, Facebook, Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, YouTube, AOL, PalTalk, Skype,
Sprint, AT&T, Apple again alleging the bulk metadata collection violates the
First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and constitutes divulgence of communication
records in violation of Section 2702 of Stored Communications Act.[4]"_

~Current Status~

 _" On January 3, 2014 the government filed notice of appeal. On February 21,
2014 government filed a motion for extension of time to file dispositive
motions in wake of the President's changes to Section 215 metadata program on
January 17, 2014.[17][18] The parties argued the case before a three-judge
panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 4, 2014.[19]"_

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama)

------
dmix
This is pretty light on details.

Is there a TLDR of the changes around? Post-water-down version ideally.

~~~
RoundCube
[https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act-two-
pa...](https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act-two-pager-final)

~~~
jessaustin
Wow a bill that isn't the exact opposite of what its name would imply.
Admittedly I was not encouraged when I saw the phrase "USA Freedom".

~~~
kijin
Names of bills nowadays have little to do with their content. Maybe we should
just get rid of names altogether and refer to them by SHA hashes of their
content...

"Some moron amended bill f7eed03, now it's bill f5ba821. Do you know how much
I had to tweak the language in order to generate a hash that looks like
'freedom'?"

~~~
gizmo686
Why not refer to the bill as H.R.3361.

For anyone interested, here is the bill in question:
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-
bill/3361](https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361)

~~~
kijin
Hashes would make it a lot easier to detect sneaky last-minute changes.

~~~
dllthomas
At the same time, though, you lose the thread if you miss any "X is the next
version of Y" update. Probably HR-number-hash would be ideal.

~~~
mgkimsal
or maybe just 'version numbers'.

HR3361.4 HR3361.5 HR3361.6

etc

Easier for everyone to understand, not just geeks...

~~~
dllthomas
People get tempted to play shenanigans like reusing numbers.

~~~
mgkimsal
datetime?

HR3361.20141106142502

almost as bad as hash, but immediately parseable and understood if a version
was before or after something else.

------
diminoten
Yeah, because the EFF is going to be unbiased when it comes to explaining
legislation.

I'm so sick of how partisan the EFF has become.

~~~
crusso
What does "unbiased" mean in the context of a group that has a stated advocacy
purpose?

Why would we expect or want anything else?

You're free to act or not upon the EFF's urging - but at least they're honest
about their goals.

~~~
diminoten
They misrepresent views and lie about legislation.

What's honest about that?

~~~
deciplex
What misrepresentation? What lies?

FWIW, I've read some other articles about this bill, and my opinion of it has
_improved_ slightly since reading the EFF brief here.

~~~
diminoten
Last time I paid attention to what the EFF had to say, they were spewing lies
and propaganda about CISPA.

