This bill explicitly allows it's use directly against Americans and declares which circumstances the FBI & other agencies need to use warrants and where these agencies will now be permitted warrantless access to FISA collections.
"Abouts" collection has a direct means to being permitted again. Ever use the word Benghazi in an email? Ok, all your communication might be wiretapped from now on. If the FBI ever wants to investigate you for something non terrorism related, something totally unrelated to Benghazi? No problem. Maybe- in some cases- they MIGHT need a warrant.
Just Security had a great writeup. This bill is a travesty, especially given that Congress has again and again asked for some information to inform them about how FISA is being used already, and the military has stonewalled and stonewalled and stonewalled. That congress would radically expand these powers, let them now directly target Americans, and would allow the FBI & others access to this program, after being continually rebuffed, AND would make this program unable to be challenged in court- it's the pinnacle of madness. It's complete dereliction of duty by congress, and one of the saddest moments of cowardice in the US Governments history that we'd stoop so low.
Pedantically the NSA, FBI and CIA are not 'military'
The DIA, NRO and NIMA are.
The FBI and the CIA are indeed civilian agencies (though the CIA has some caveats there).
The NSA play(ed) a very large role in modern military deployments overseas, especially in the middle east and africa with their targeting systems.
The best counterpoint is the bill Obama passed before leaving office, expanding the data sharing between agencies and the more general significant expansion of scope of the NSAs activities in recent years to involve plenty of domestic and civilian issues (beyond politics) including supporting the efforts on the War on Drugs, DHS, and FBI activities.
Apparently it has the impact that a big majority of congress will never vote against it. I wonder why that is?
My understanding is that properly cleared representatives and their staff can absolutely get information on what they need and speak candidly about all the sensitive details in a SCIF.
This recurring narrative that intelligence agencies are holding back is not good, because it makes it seem like representatives are being misled and are tricked into voting for these authorities, deflecting accountability, which is far more convenient than the truth of them being well-informed and still choosing to support it.
The recurring narrative sounds completely correct & shocking & egregious. It sounds like the military is operating completely out of control, with no oversight, because the Senators in charge of oversight say they can't get even basic preliminary information.
Your statement seems dangerous and misleading @willstrafach. If the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence gets nothing, not even basics, something is deeply awry. Who are the cleared representatives? Who has gone and asked serious questions? What does Wyden, who cares deeply, need to do to get whatever clearances you wishfully suggest as magic remedy here? This is fradulent bad misdirection @willstrafachs. It's all suggestion, with not a shred of backing to it.
It's an unacceptably bad and insubstantial reply to one of the most serious, can-kicked-down-the-road the longest issues, a terrible spectre still haunting us from Bush II years. This issue seems never to have been at all handled at all properly, since it's inception, and things are still fast & loose, the basic measures of oversight & responsibility seem deeply obstructed. That's a threat to Democracy, and it constantly throws into peril American trustworthiness under essential programs like EU Privacy Shield.
I can understand that you don't like ambiguity in my reply, that is fully understandable, but it is not very reasonable to discard it wholesale. I am happy to elaborate.
First, "preliminary, basic information on the impact of this program" is your interpretation, and is a generalization. There are very specific and valid questions Wyden has. Not only that, but he might know the answers to some, as you can see that some in the linked source are "The public doesn't know" whereas others are "No one knows" the answer. For the record, I do agree that the public (beyond cleared reps) should have a whole lot more information to review on these matters for the sake of transparency, but that is not relevant to this current claim of cleared representatives allegedly not getting information.
Now the precise issues at hand:
> Who can be targeted by 702 spying?
> A: The public doesn’t know. If you listen to intelligence agency leaders, you would think only foreign terrorists could be targeted for spying under Section 702. But when Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and I asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats what broad categories of people could be targeted by this program, he refused to answer the question publicly.
The Snowden leaks additionally showed that beyond counter-terrorism, 702 is used for counter-proliferation, counter-intelligence and tracing cyber attacks as well. Additionally, due to the nature of how every intel agency in every country in the world operates, one can reasonably assume it is probably also used to assess the intentions of foreign government/military leaders, as that is a very basic reason for nation-state level spying.
His use of "the public" implies there is a classified answer given in closed session, in the same manner I described in my previous comment. I agree with him, there is probably little reason to keep this list classified. I am also personally curious if it has changed since the Snowden leaks (Worth noting, if it didn't, the leaks did not de-classify this list so answer would still be "classified" thus the uncertainty).
> How many emails and other communications from Americans are collected by the government under Section 702?
> A: No one knows, because the government refuses to count.
I think it would be great to have the answer to this one as well, but I cannot think of any non-invasive manner this could be achieved technically.
I will use X-Keyscore an example here. According to the Snowden leaks, X-Keyscore is a unified search interface for a 5 day rolling content buffer (30 days for metadata) containing traffic from different points of accesses around the world (Whether it be a dish pointed at a satellite used as a data link used for embassy comms, "CNE"/hacked router in a middle eastern ISP, a tapped cable connecting traffic between countries, or otherwise). Lots of traffic is going to be "collected" and is subsequently purged. Based on my understanding of how traditional firewalls work, I don't see how any sort of deep packet inspection could be used on the subnets/IPs "selected" for collection without maintaining a large internal buffer or choking on all the intake, so that is likely why there is no decision logic at this point and thus there will be incidental collection of US Person Information if you are communicating via e-mail with someone in a target country, for example.
The fix for this now is prohibition of queries on US Person selectors. This is not hard to impose for US IP addresses and US phone numbers. However, e-mails are murkier, as the originator's location is not going to be clear based on the e-mail address alone. In order to try to identify a communicant, they would need to read the message content in order to try making a determination on this.
I am aware that, again according to the Snowden leaks, this can happen when pursuing legit targets, requiring US identities to be "masked" when found and I believe all such incidents are reported. However, I am personally far less comfortable with the idea of that determination being done at scale in order to get a proper count of US Person communications which have been collected on. Right now, the majority of incidentally collected communications will be discarded. If the IC was required to produce this count though, it means each communication would actually need to be analyzed to make the USPI determination, thereby ensuring US Person communications would actually be read. Again, to me, this seems far more invasive.
I don't see a better way to solve this issue. I am looking forward to your feedback on this aspect, because perhaps there is a non-invasive way to determine which comms are US/non-US that I have not thought about.
Based on the above logic, I think it would be better for him to push the IC to publicly release counts of incidentally collected US Person communications which have actually been viewed, because (again to my understanding - based on Snowden leaks), the USP determination has to be made anyway when analyzing traffic as they wade through to write their reports and such. So such counts must informally exist in some manner due to the need to make this foregin-ness determination, there should be no technical or personnel issues in producing an answer to this question, nor should there be classification issues due to the fact that it is just a number.
> How many times does the government search for Americans’ communications without warrants?
> A: No one knows, because only some government agencies count. The National Security Agency and the CIA both conduct warrantless backdoor searches of communications collected under Section 702. There are thousands of such searches for the content of communications and tens of thousands for communications records. But the FBI searches Americans’ information so frequently, it does not bother to count.
Not keeping a count is a logical answer for the question, and is different from a refusal to answer.
That said, at least in my view, the count is not relevant. It does not make sense for a domestic law enforcement agency such as the FBI to have any sort of access to American data without a warrant, full-stop. Even if the specific details of their access to 702 data made it technically in compliance with the law, the optics of the blurred foreign/domestic separation are very problematic.
> Can the government use Section 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic?
> A: The public doesn’t know the answer to this fundamental question. When I asked the DNI at a hearing, he first replied no, which was reassuring. Later, he said he was answering a different question. Then he said it was classified.
I'm glad he gave Wyden a classified answer to this, and I would very much be interested in that answer being declassified. However, again, the point in question was keeping cleared representatives in the dark (The non-cleared public being kept in the dark is a very different discussion, one which I assume we would probably both be more agreeable).
One more thing to address:
> If the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence gets nothing
What do you think they discuss, then, if the allegation is that no information is given to them? As shown with the above "public" versus "no one" phrasing, is it your belief that Wyden was lying about receiving classified answers of which he would like the public to know?
And if they weren't enough, the age average of them is fairly close to retirement age:
"The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 114th Congress was 57.0 years; of Senators, 61.0 years."
Ehhh. Richmond and Oakland, yes. Berkeley? No. San Francisco? No.
And no, it's not a question of "if you have nothing to hide.." it's simple, basic reality--you are not free in any sense of the word if you have East-German type surveillance up your ass 24/7.
Folks, it ain't so. The Democrats won't protect us in this regard any more than the Republicans will.
125 Democrats voted to add privacy protections, 55 did not.
58 Republicans voted to add privacy protections, 178 did not.
By definition, that means Democrats were better about privacy protections.
Stop peddling this both-parties-are-the-same nonsense. Its amazing this can even be said with a straight face during the Trump administration.
From my comment down thread
>Unfortunately Obama almost quadrupled funding to these agencies. Throughout his administration he allowed the Alphabet boys to try and steal more american's data without warrants (See FBI v Apple and the FBI attempting to get access to your browser history with out warrants). Obama even EXPANDED surveillance on his way out of office. Obama also said he was pro whistle blowers we all know what happened to Chelsea.
Parent didn't say _only_ Republicans do this. Parent said Republicans do it more. They backed it up with proof (Congress voting record).
Obama didn't expand surveillance on his way out (several surveillance programs stopped under his watch, including both email and phone metadata collection). You're confusing an authorization to share information, which allowed a more thorough investigation into Russian meddling, with authorization to collect new data.
Your first link doesn't support your claim that Obama quadrupled funding because that didn't happen. https://fas.org/irp/budget/
And we all know that Obama released Manning over the objections of our current President.
Obama also said he was pro whistle blowers
we all know what happened to Chelsea.
I am sure it will be easy for her to explain "Violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, multiple counts of disobeying orders" on her job application.
The Dems are better. They are better than republicans on this, but they certainly aren't good enough. That is the unfortunate part. But if you definitely want a better chance for civil liberties, voting for R's will hurt you worse than if you vote for D's, significantly so.
I suppose that depends which civil liberties are more important to you. You'll find that Democrats are pretty awful if you value your right to self-defense, or if you don't think the government should be able to use eminent domain to take your property and give it to a wealthy supporter.
Some of the details may be different, but they're both different sides of the same coin. I don't see that one side is significantly better than the other overall.
Democrats had plenty of opportunity to strengthen privacy laws during the previous administration, but they didn't. Instead they strengthened the surveillance powers of the government. Now that a Republican controls the executive branch and all of these agencies, they want those powers weakened.
The US is experiencing the terrible pitfalls of a two-party system, just as the founding fathers warned. Instead of making progress, the parties mostly just fight each other, at our expense.
Regardless of what they believe, a politician's first priority is reelection, and it is partisan campaign committees that hold the reigns to the resources required for that. Even if you are independently wealthy and can finance your own campaign, you can't accomplish anything in office if you get ostracized by everyone who doesn't have that luxury.
Cooperate with the cartel leadership, or you'll be denied funding, voter data, and committee seats.
If you don't like blacks, browns and gays but DO like privacy were do you go? Exactly. There is no alternative to the Republicans.
If the US had 15 parties in Congress the game would be a LOT more interesting. Half of America has no choice to support Trump because the alternative is literally Satan.
So here we are: the endless stalemate.
More accurately, the US electoral system supports only two competitive parties at a time; the US political system has several dozen political parties.
I don't have much faith in the Democratic party as an institution to protect privacy, but many Democrats are trying to do so.
One of the reasons democrats feel able to be horrible here is that there is just no alternative.
* Bush implemented surveillance of citizens in response to 9/11
* Obama continued to support this program after it was revealed by Edward Snowden
* Now there's Trump
Unfortunately Obama almost quadrupled funding to these agencies. Throughout his administration he allowed the Alphabet boys to try and steal more american's data without warrants (See FBI v Apple and the FBI attempting to get access to your browser history with out warrants). Obama even EXPANDED surevellience on his way out of office. Obama also said he was pro whistle blowers we all know what happened to Chelsea.
Let's not even get into the fact that he dropped a bomb on average every 20 minutes of his presidency. The is just 2016
Something to ponder.
Edit: your house.gov link is in fact wrong. This is the correct link. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml
My Twitter link shows Dems who voted against the USA Rights amendment, and my house.gov link is for the bill itself. It is possible (and in fact likely) that a rep who voted no on the amendment would support the bill without it.
Your house.gov link is for the amendment, so it should reflect the same votes as the image in the tweet.
Dems who voted against the Amash/USA Rights amendment: https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992
All votes for the Amash/USA Rights amendment: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml
All votes on S. 139, aka the main bill: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml
To my knowledge, he's the only one that does it with any degree of regularity.
The Amash amendment was also to this bill.
Here is a pamphlet comparing S. 139 with the Amash/USA Rights Act Amendment: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/ChartCompa...
That same document refers to S. 139 as the FISA Reauthorization Amendments Act.
More clarification from journalists who closely follow this topic: https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/951541344274649089
First, it sounds like a genetic information surveillance law to me, but lots of laws have things other than their main focus (including reauths of other laws) tucked in.
Second, lots of laws have misleading titles; do “USA PATRIOT Act” and “USA FREEDOM Act” sound (other than knowing the actual content put under those titles included) like surveillance laws?
Also, it's quite conceivable that a government considers surveilance "patriotic" or necessary to defend "freedom", but I don't feel the same about "Rapid DNA".
The government is largely focusing on iPhone at this point, and why not. Apple is an easy target to beat on for the woes of late stage capitalism and unchecked foreign policy, however any modern consumer tech company worth their salt has seen the writing for quite some time. Encrypt, and make sure you're out of the loop entirely.
Signal type apps hide both and are valuable, but without widespread adoption is meaningless to most people.
I'm not against any of the progress you cite, but so long as people can be targeted based on metadata they are at risk. Once targeted, it becomes child's play to bypass the encryption that most people employ, whether through social engineering or side channel attacks (beyond Spectre-type) or governmental requests/threats to cloud providers.
It's somewhat understandable why that isn't already used for everything. The latency impact is not small and it's unlikely the network could take the load if everyone actually started using it for everything.
But it's unfortunate it isn't being used more widely for messaging, where neither of those things are major problems.
It was a quietly authorized program Bush signed off on & that the DoJ authorized & no one knew anything more about. Congress didn't know any more than we did about it until Wired began writing up the program in 2012, a full decade after it began, talking about the massive massive data warehouse in Utah that the NSA was building with details provided by William Binney.
And it wasn't until Snowden's 2013 leaks that the government really had to admit to what it was doing, had to fess up to the STELLAR WIND program, & that forced the creation of a more "regulated" system, supposedly protected by the as-we've-seen rubber-stamping FISA court.
The government has been unable to regulate or consider this program, because it's been concealed & shadowy for a long long time, and could well have remained that way.
Now Congress actually has some responsibility to the American people, and sadly, in spite of unbelievable stonewalling & unwillingness to disclose how many Americans, how many emails it sweeps up, in spite of terrifying provisions like "abouts" collection, Congress is somehow deciding that drastically expanding the program's scope & using it for non-terrorism purposes is OK. Congress is insane, completely derelict from duty.
I don't really disagree. Bush, Obama, and Trump are all kicking this can down the road. But for Congress too to be soo willing to kick this down the road is really a shock. And you're exactly right. When FBI Director Christopher Wray gets up and says- encryption is a problem- he's far far less credible & we have far less chance to meet him part way, when the government seems so happy giving itself such unlimited unaccountable spy powers. Math is the only defense we have against this catastrophic, out of control authoritarianism, and we're not very liable to abandon or dismantle that shelter, when the US government seems unwilling to develop even an iota of restraint.
I'd also point out the other tension: the US government is placing itself just as much at ends with Europe and the rest of the world as they are the technology world. The EU's Privacy Shield ongoingly takes issue with the US's seemingly ever growing 702 authorization to spy on everyone, and the question of revisiting the data-sharing arrangements that make much of it possible keeps coming up.
The US was running on borrowed time as it was. This radical expansion of powers in this new 702 bill are only heightening the silently growing crisis. Congress and the military seem entirely unwilling to strike any kind of balance, seem unwilling to get even basic facts on what the size, scale and impact of the program really are, while increasing it's scope and scale. This is an untennable position, and I thank you for doing a really good job highlighting a lot of the irresolvable tensions the US Government has created for itself with this unaccountable unquestionable seemingly unlimited program.
was hoping Ryan and gang could have stuffed it but I guess its hard when bipartisan results is code for Washington vs the USA
> “The Intelligence Committee’s bill disregards the Constitution and common sense by granting the government the authority to search Americans’ communications without first obtaining a warrant,” Schuman told The Intercept. “Not only does this turn the purpose of the foreign surveillance law on its head, transforming it into a domestic surveillance tool, but it places activists, minorities, and everyone else at the mercy of President Trump and Attorney General Sessions, who have made clear their disregard for legal constraints and democratic norms.”
How can I help her understand why people fight for privacy?
In other words, you have to prove that the harms of surveillance outweigh the nebulous sense of protection an average person already has regarding survillance.
It's trivial to come up with examples of how survillance is good for an average person in regular life - - see public camera catching criminals, dash cams, etc.
Fortunately we don't have to look to that. More than once the public road surveillance cameras have aided my decision to work from home. They have also helped me decided to take/not take an alternate route around bad traffic.
Those are real benefits to surveillance that help me. I understand your worries, and they are real. However there are also benefits that you cannot discard.
This is a big part of the difference between traffic cameras and unchecked surveillance of individuals.
Similarly, you could ask anyone who experienced life (or had a relative who did) in the Soviet Union or East Germany under the thumb of those overwhelming surveillance networks.
Finally, to prematurely head off an objection you might have: are these events (Nazi, Soviet, East Germany) outliers? Yes. Does that disqualify them? No. 
Imagine if the party in power used state surveillance to monitor their opponent and the people who support them. The whole infrastructure is turn-key authoritarian, there's literally nothing logistical stopping this, only a handshake agreement not to.
This should concern people regardless of their political affiliation or party loyalty.
Whether the renewal to continue spying into early 2017 was (figuratively) warranted is debatable, but with the official reasoning largely classified, the public may never know.
Before anyone grabs a pitchfork, focus on the issue at hand and not the current politics. Doesn't matter who's in the White House - friend or foe, would you want them to have this power?
But for the bigger issue, yes it is a thing that needs to be controlled.
Circumstantially, I think strong evidence that this happened is the Trump team's behavior after he was briefed by the NSA director, Admiral Rogers. The day after their confidential meeting, all relevant activities were immediately moved out of Trump Tower.
Anyway, this is off-topic and is a testy topic as it is so I apologize for the tangent. On topic I agree it shouldn't be possible for anyone to do this, no matter their politics.
In other parts of society, there's a tradeoff behind what's good for society and what's good for individual freedoms.
Some people (say) don't want mandatory health insurance or helmet laws or whatever because they think freedom to choose is paramount. Others think it's insane that you'd EVER be opposed to something that might save even one life (what about the children??)
Sometimes these arguments are couched in terms of personal responsibility, the nanny state training us to rely on it and creating worse overall outcomes, etc etc.
It started with the war on drugs and is now the war on terror.
One big catastrophic terrorist attack perpetrated via computer networks and the internet will be all it takes to wipe out any vestige we have left of privacy and anonymity. Could easily see TOR and the like being outlawed worldwide.
Give her 1984 to read.
I think it's as Thomas Jefferson said: "...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Perhaps in this case, the suffering is not great and the vision of privacy is not strongly supported. But I disagree that people will choose safety over freedom every time.
Freedom leads to the most security. If you scatter plot graph "free countries" and "safe countries" you'll find an unmistakable positive correlation. Whether the dangers are religious police kidnapping people for "virginity tests," people being disappeared for criticizing the government, or routine industrial accidents in places where expendable people aren't free to demand workers rights, a lack of freedom increases danger.
You're pretty safe in Switzerland, not so much in Iraq.
In one public demo, jaywalkers in a city intersection had their personal details appear on a giant screen.
I really wonder how much changing demographics (population aging) account for the shifts in public opinion on issues like this.
People who never experienced large scale oppression, eastern Europe pre nineties for example, will have a hard time grasping the repercussions.
Yes, a pile of articles, stating without proof, the same thing, all coming out at the same time .. almost as if they were coordinated. When specific facts of said articles are proven to be incorrect, small retractions that never make the news cycle are issued.
> the only reason his "associates" were caught up in
> surveillance reports is because they called criminals
> who were already under surveillance. It's like if the
> FBI is wire-tapping Al Capone, and you called Al Capone.
> Sure, you'd get listened to, but they aren't tapping YOU.
There are supposed to be legal barriers, and renewing this law continues to reject what we're supposed to have in place, for everyone.
 - https://youtu.be/xUyKCpRl68E?t=3448
A state actor can do more widespread damage than what we gain by catching some terrorists.
Precisely for national security, we need good security in every entity.
Example - A report (leaked to The Intercept) regarding Russian spearphishing: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3766950/NSA-Repor...
Normally if you do not like what a House member does there is not much you can do unless you are in that member's district. In that case you can vote for someone other than them.
In the case of Ryan, though, you can do something even if you live in another district. The majority party decides on who will be Speaker. If Ryan's partly loses its majority Ryan goes back to being just an ordinary member of the House, one of over 400. You can indirectly vote against Ryan's speakership by voting against the candidate from his party in your district.
We need both privacy and surveillance. The harm from too little privacy tends to manifest on a longer time frame than the harm from too little surveillance, so when considering a good balance between the two is off the table it is understandable one might go for the option that looks like it will be the safest short term.
Pelosi is indeed quite aligned with Republicans on surveillance issues. If she had been speaker she probably would have supported the current bill. But would she have blocked consideration of the compromise, like Ryan did?
That seems much less likely, because despite Pelosi and a few other Democrats being quite pro-surveillance the fact is that the party as a whole is quite a bit less pro-surveillance than are the Republicans as a whole. She would have had a harder time than Ryan keeping the compromise from being considered because she would be going against the majority of her own party, unlike Ryan.
So, if you want to shift parties you need to get into the primary process.
One step deeper, there is a lot of popular support in the US for these measures. Nobody wants to face "Did not vote to keep you safe" attack add when that's going to resonate with people.
But seriously we need someone in the oval office who feels strongly about protecting the privacy of Americans (and everyone else!). Trump is just another one in the line to rubber-stamp this. Not holding my breath though...
Normally, one would think that a communication that has been
intercepted and stored in a government database as “collected.”
But the government’s definition of what it means to “collect”
intelligence information is quite different from its plain
Under Department of Defense regulations, information is
considered to be “collected” only after it has been “received
for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component,” and
“data acquired by electronic means is ‘collected’ only when it
has been processed into intelligible form.”
In other words, the NSA can intercept and store communications
in its data base and have an algorithm search them for key
words and analyze the meta data without ever considering the
Nobody can clear it up for you, except possibly someone who has knowledge of the top secret programs run by all the U.S. government agencies, by agencies of other governments, by commercial businesses, and possibly by sophisticated criminal organizations.
Regarding only U.S. government surveillance, even the most informed citizen's knowledge is based on years-old incomplete reports of a subset of programs; nobody knows what was left out and what has changed, but we know that the NSA alone has maybe 40,000 employees and a $10 billion budget; that pays for a lot of surveillance. Remember that many other governments and businesses share their surveillance with the U.S.; if what you do is picked up by one, others may know too.
In other words, assume that anything you do online, or on a computer or phone which collects user data, is swept up.
Now you would need to be more specifically targeted under FISA, if they felt there was valid reason, and the timeframe for collection on that data would vary.
Another matter is whether google really deletes accounts when asked, or really doesn't store histories when asked. Because if the data is stored by Google, when the time comes and the person becomes "interesting" for the US establishment, they can rubber-stamp FISA court warrant and get this data.
Has anyone done a study or solicited information from the government that shows the impact of legislation such as FISA or better yet the Patriot ACT's post provision sunset (what's left of the act) parts? Namely - hard numbers that shows in a numerical fashion the fact based evidence to keep overt invasions of privacy in check in the name of security.
Being from New York, I always try to question politicians here - more specifically Gov. Cuomo on the quantifiable evidence that supports the SAFE ACT's passage in our state - on such things, to have a better impact on things that affect me regionally vs. worrying about broad stroke Federal things that rarely do.
To be fair, Trump is hardly the the first President to seek renewal of such laws.
> useful in cracking down on citizens and opponents who criticize him.
There were multiple reports about "Dark Side" yesterday - https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/dark-side-federal-unit-...
What could possibly go wrong.....
"For the record, Trump's administration supports full reauthorization. In fact, the White House issued a statement on Wednesday evening — hours before Trump's tweet — restating its call for members of Congress to vote for its continued use."
The question for me is: at what point will people begin to reject this farce of a ruling elite that exists today?
But, soon, the economics will flip. And, there will be money to be made from selling privacy. For instance, assume all credit card, phone, cable companies, etc. pool their data. For a monthly subscription, this conglomerate will keep your info (or parts of it) hidden. The default will be everything is knowable about everyone, except for those who pay a fee to erase info from their records.
Far more money to be made selling privacy than selling info. 4th amendment and all the rest is moot. Our info is held by private international companies who, eventually, will begin charging you to keep things hidden from others.
Really the bad part is that most people don’t know about or how to use technology to protect their privacy :-/
What's the purpose of having a government again?
More than half of this article is about Trump's tweets. How about naming and shaming all the Republicans and Democrats that voted to extend the surveillance law instead?