
Defund the NSA - This Isn't Over - sethbannon
http://defundthensa.com/#
======
pvnick
This is great! A followup contact, either praise or criticism, is like
Pavlovian conditioning for our representatives. I'm happy to say I was able to
give positive reinforcement to my congressman. Forgive me if I'm mixing up my
theories, I haven't taken a psychology class in several years.

Also, great job to Sina and the taskforce!

~~~
iwasanewt
What you're talking about is operant conditioning (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning)
)

------
tieTYT
Here's what I want: A link that I can click on that will add a google calendar
event to notify me with the list of representatives to vote AGAINST when
voting season comes. I'm pissed now, but like all americans, I'll probably
forget about this come election.

~~~
cinquemb
That is a good idea. Yesterday in irc, we could only think of trying to get
people to confront their local reps in their offices. I'll pass this along.

Edit: If anyone knows any place to programmatically get (r)election dates for
districts, please tell us here:
[https://github.com/tfrce/DefundTheNSA/issues/14](https://github.com/tfrce/DefundTheNSA/issues/14)

~~~
na85
>irc

Which channel/network?

~~~
cinquemb
##rritf/freenode, but I don't know if anyone is there now.

------
thinkbohemian
Idea: pre-prepared websites that call to attention representatives that are
against privacy (voted for SOPA, the NSA, TSA, etc.) make them available to
deploy on heroku, github, s3, whatever. Then developers in support of privacy
can litter the internet with them come election time.

If all these guys care about is getting re-elected, lets make it clear not
supporting their constituents will seriously damage their chances.

Also love the followup idea.

~~~
diminoten
What makes you think they're not supporting their constituents?

~~~
drcube
Because they support spying on them. That's kind of the opposite of supporting
them.

~~~
diminoten
You should pay more attention to polls - it's not quite the landslide you're
implying it is. Many people are okay with being spied on.

~~~
drcube
This is why we have morals. So we don't have to conduct opinion polls to see
what's right and wrong.

Plenty of atrocious things were wildly popular. They get absolutely zero extra
legitimacy for being so.

~~~
diminoten
Do you believe your moral compass to be perfect, or is it flawed?

In the event that you think it's flawed, how do you recommend making sure your
flawed moral compass isn't going to cause something immoral to happen?

~~~
drcube
>how do you recommend making sure your flawed moral compass isn't going to
cause something immoral to happen?

Careful reflection. Self examination. Dialog and debate with others I consider
intelligent and ethical. Certainly not a popularity contest.

~~~
diminoten
Each one of the ways you check your moral compass are easily corruptible by
your moral compass.

A vote, or a so-called "popularity contest", is, out of all the things you
just listed, the least corruptible by your own biases.

------
ctdonath
A near-even split on the first try over a high-stakes issue is a pretty darned
good showing. Lay into those supportive of the state violating every semblance
of privacy, and then try again.

~~~
diminoten
I said this before, but the closeness of the vote has _nothing_ to do with how
close the vote actually was. Once the whips figure out if a bill is going to
pass or not, they then let people vote however will get them more money.

~~~
bargl
I'm curious how whips work. Do you have anything I could read up on it to
learn more? It makes sense from a certain perspective, but does that mean that
they decided to look into how many people were going to vote no for sure
(which was 217). Then the remaining legislators would get more money if they
voted yes (205) or maybe they voted yes because it was what their constituents
wanted. That's all speculation but it's seriously interesting and very
disturbing.

~~~
diminoten
Once you know a vote isn't going to happen, the voting gets rearranged to look
good. Since the outcome is the same, it doesn't really matter how the outcome
happens, so long as the 'yes' or the 'no' is still a 'yes' or 'no'.

And it's probably one of the least improper things that happens in US
government.

I'd also like to take a moment to explain why this vote doesn't have a chance,
ever, and it's the exact same reason all spending cuts to defense don't
generally go through - all it takes is one bad thing to happen, and suddenly
every single person who voted to reduce defense spending/the NSA budget is at
risk in their district.

It's the easiest attack ad in the world to construct: "My opponent was one of
the people who took away the NSA's power to defend this country, and as a
result we were attacked again!" That's a guaranteed and immediate hit that's
very easy to understand. What's _much_ more complicated is the 'yes' argument.
It's nuanced, confusing, many constituents don't even want it, and in general
a big risk.

The _biggest_ win for members of congress is if no change actually happens,
and yet they still get to have a voting record that shows they're against what
the NSA is doing (exactly how it turned out). Those "yes" votes were probably
pretty damn expensive for the congresspeople who got them, but they'd be HUGE
liabilities if the vote actually passed.

In other words, 'yes' votes were worth more if the 'yes' lost.

~~~
Amadou
While that is all true, it is still worth noting that worst case they still
cared enough to be disingenuous about their voting records.

If they believed that they could just get away with sweeping it under the rug,
they would not even have tried to manipulate the optics of the vote. That's
still a victory in the face of all the propaganda downplaying the importance
of the issue.

~~~
diminoten
They _are_ getting away with sweeping it under the rug. You're being pandered
to by worthless voting records, if anything I'd be more upset were I in your
position.

------
evanm
The NSA spying program is horrible, yes. And I think it should be halted
immediately. But we need the NSA—they do important things for this country
despite the bad clout they've received because of this one domestic program.
That program is minuscule in size compared to the sum of the important
operations that are conducted in the agency.

I want to make myself clear. I think the domestic intercepts are 100% wrong
and unconstitutional. That needs to stop. But that agency is home to smart
people who do other necessary work to protect us.

~~~
matchu
For reference, here's the text of the amendment: [http://amendments-
rules.house.gov/amendments/AMASH_018_xml27...](http://amendments-
rules.house.gov/amendments/AMASH_018_xml2718131717181718.pdf)

It short, it defunds the NSA's ability to conduct surveillance on people who
are not being investigated.

------
jasonkolb
I think this could get legs.

Are there any other like this issues where the government is blatantly
thumbing its nose at its own people? I'm running a survey right now and one of
the elements is support for the NSA surveillance, and almost nobody supports
it. Like, 85% just say it's flat-out wrong.

~~~
rayiner
Survey of who? Do you have a tech-biased or liberal-biased or youth-biased
audience?

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-
suppor...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-support-nsa-
tracking-phone-records-prioritize-investigations-over-
privacy/2013/06/10/51e721d6-d204-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html) ("Overall,
56 percent of Americans consider the NSA’s accessing of telephone call records
of millions of Americans through secret court orders 'acceptable,' while 41
percent call the practice 'unacceptable.'")

~~~
jasonkolb
I'm just trying to get random people to respond. I would refer to gknoy's
comment about how easy surveys are to manipulate, and question whether the
survey you mention was created with a purpose.

I've been working with some research companies lately and one thing which
surprised me was the fact that surveys are often constructed with the sequence
of questions carefully set up to test various messages. Unless you can see the
survey itself, I would question the results.

For example, the question prior to 'How do you feel about the NSA’s accessing
of telephone call records of millions of Americans through secret court
orders' might have been 'Is it important that the NSA’s accessing of telephone
call records of millions of Americans has stopped terrorist attacks?' This
type of question can mightily swing the outcome, so if you don't have access
to the survey you need to ask yourself if the organization putting out the
survey has an agenda...

~~~
rayiner
What do you mean "random people?" What sorts of sites are you posting the
survey to? If people like my mom aren't part of your survey demographic, your
methodology is flawed.

The Washington Post-Pew survey is detailed (through a link) in the article,
specifically this question:

"Q: As you may know, it has been reported that the National Security Agency
has been getting secret court orders to track telephone call records of
MILLIONS of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism. Would you
consider this access to telephone call records an acceptable or unacceptable
way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?"

58% responded 'acceptable' and 41% responded 'unacceptable'.

~~~
Amadou
FWIW, I think the WAPO-PEW phrasing is slightly biased in favor of the NSA. I
think the following would be more accurate and thus more closer to neutral
(italics indicate changes):

"Q: As you may know, it has been reported that the National Security Agency
has been getting secret court orders to _collect_ telephone call records of
_nearly all American cell phones_ in an effort to investigate terrorism. Would
you consider this _collection of_ telephone call records an acceptable or
unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?"

What isn't clear to me is if the phrasing has changed from the survey a month
ago to the most recent survey. If the phrasing (of the entire survey because
cross-question context is important) is not identical then the results just
aren't comparable no matter what biases may or may not be built into the
questions.

------
mtgx
Might as well add this one to the criticism sent to your representative:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-
bill-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-bill-
authorizes-sanctions-on-russia-or-any-other-country-offering-snowden-
asylum/2013/07/25/feaaf55e-f53c-11e2-81fa-8e83b3864c36_story.html)

------
Fuzzwah
Great site. I was able to research and find that Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema,
serving Arizona's 9th District was cosponsor of the Amash bill but voted
against the amendment, stating that it "has an unintended consequence".

Her press release is full of wonderful contradictions and weasel words:

[http://sinema.house.gov/index.cfm/press-
releases?ID=b23deeab...](http://sinema.house.gov/index.cfm/press-
releases?ID=b23deeab-d42e-4a22-808c-787ef7190761)

From:

“I have very real concerns about the federal government’s action and lack of
transparency regarding the collection and retention of law-abiding Americans’
private information. "

Straight to:

"I believe that we must work toward less intrusive methods to ensure our
security. The broad language we considered today could have limited the
ability of our national security and law enforcement community to prevent the
bombing plot against the New York subway system or to quickly respond to
events like the Boston bombing."

Wrapping it all up with:

"There are other ways than the invasive collection of metadata to ensure the
security of Americans while protecting our precious 4th Amendment rights.”

Ok... so there are other ways, gotcha.... but you don't vote for an amendment
which would have forced the NSA into using / finding other ways. Cool.

Edit: I give her props for responding to my tweet though:
[https://twitter.com/fuzzywah/status/360441317609840642](https://twitter.com/fuzzywah/status/360441317609840642)

------
AndrewKemendo
Does anyone find it ironic that the same folks who are anti-libertarian (not
necessarily the HN crowd) and anti-tea party are strident supporters of a tea-
party favorite congressman's amendment. The idea that such a group would rally
around someone who they would not have voted for, seems strange.

I am not sure if I should be proud that a citizenry can see past politics and
rally based on substance, or if they are totally out of touch with how
politics works.

------
mey
Source info

    
    
      http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20130724
    

It was Roll call #412, the Amash ammendment for Bill H.r. 2397

    
    
      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2397
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h412

------
evykoala
I called both of mine (FL), one voted one way and the other the other. Do I
thank the one, and what would I say to the other?

~~~
jdp23
Good job calling! And yes, call both again - with thanks (it shows you really
care and are paying attention), and with disappointment, asking why they voted
the way they did, letting them know this may influence your vote in the
primary and general election, and recommendations about what they should read
to get a different perspective when the next vote comes up.

~~~
mzs
What's the list of stuff they could read? Thanks

------
giardini
Astonishingly page doesn't work in Opera.

And why all the effort in a "defund NSA" site to find out as much as possible
about visitors (e-mail, zip code) and link them to Facebook, Twitter and
Google, the second-tier sinners in this scandal?

Just provide good information at a pre-defined URL - I'll get around to it if
I want to.

~~~
beaugunderson
We will definitely test in Opera going forward--thank you for reporting that
it doesn't work.

We are trying to figure out how to best spread a message while still being
privacy-conscious. One possible idea is to put the sharing functionality on a
second page, thus allowing people who want to share to do so but not loading
scripts for people just visiting for the first time. Another is to load
sharing scripts on the same page asynchronously only if people click a 'Tweet
my legislator!' button--that's how the current site would work if there were
not the three social buttons at the bottom of the page.

We'll also be dropping Google Analytics for Piwik (which is self-hosted) soon.

------
JumpCrisscross
Representatives up for election in 2013 [EDIT: 2014] should be flagged. Ones
in competitive states should be at the top, with donation links for those who
voted Aye. If they voted Nay and their competitor is anti-NSA, their
competitor gets a donation link by the incumbent's name.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Representatives up for election in 2013 should be flagged.

That's going to be a pretty short list, as regular elections for all seats of
the House of Representatives (and one-third of the seats of the Senate) occur
in every even-numbered year.

The only House elections in 2013 would be special elections, which would
normally be to fill a _vacant_ seat, and thus would not have an incumbent
running.

------
joelg236
Not sure who would know how to fix this, but the tweet button only puts
half[1] of the message in. (URL maybe too long)

[1] - [http://imgur.com/z7JDuXV](http://imgur.com/z7JDuXV)

~~~
FridayWithJohn
weird, it worked fine for me. Try to just manually add it. The positive Tweet
was "Thank you for supporting #privacy! You're earning my vote, keep up the
good work! #defundNSA [http://defundthensa.com/"](http://defundthensa.com/")
while the negative Tweet was: "It's shameful that you voted for
unconstitutional record collection instead of #privacy! #defundNSA
[http://defundthensa.com/"](http://defundthensa.com/")

------
izx
another good link, providing full information about everyone that voted on
this, with clickable links to more detailed information about each
representative.

Makes it easier to get people to pester the appropriate representative.

[http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/113/house/1/vote...](http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/113/house/1/votes/412/)

------
mattmanser
Broken on Chrome/Win 7.

EDIT: Whoops, it's Adblock Plus on Chrome. For some reason it gets rid of most
of the site.

------
wtvanhest
What is going on with the photo of Judy Chu and the guy below her? I'm
referencing the duct tape.

------
tvtime15
WWRPD?

------
potatoman2
I'm a trifle pessimistic over the chances of this ever succeeding.

~~~
pvnick
Did you not see the vote spread yesterday? Twelve vote difference. That's
incredible, and this is only the beginning.

Also remember, there are still leaks to come, we've only seen a glimpse of the
full scope of the revelations.

~~~
haakon
My understanding is that even if it had passed with flying colours, Obama
would have vetoed it. So all of this process is just for show.

~~~
ctdonath
If it had passed with flying colors, pressure on the Obama to _not_ veto it
would be tremendous.

~~~
sillysaurus
He's already been reelected, so he doesn't care what the general public thinks
of him.

~~~
ctdonath
True that he doesn't care per se, but as I doubt he's going to quietly retire
to a Hawaiian villa in 3.5 years, he does have to gauge who thinks what of
this presumably unexpected issue & backlash.

------
btbuildem
FYI, you're missing the congresspeople who abstained.

~~~
beaugunderson
Very good point--abstentions and absences should also be listed.

~~~
chinpokomon
Had those who abstained voted yes, it would have been a tie. It would have
still failed to pass because the WH would have the final say, but I'm
encouraged that it was as close as it was.

------
josephby
Too many secrets.

