[quote]
One of the biggest thorns in the side of the country’s intelligence agencies attempted to mount an eleventh hour bid to kill the spy agencies' funding bill on Wednesday.
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) wrote on Facebook that the intelligence authorization bill that easily passed through the House contained “one of the most egregious sections of law I've encountered during my time as a representative.”
“It grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American,” explained Amash, who has a record of skepticism toward the National Security Agency and other agencies. Last year, he nearly succeeded in an attempt to end the NSA’s controversial phone records program.
The bill was originally set to be considered with just a simple voice vote, but Amash rushed to the House floor on Wednesday to demand a recorded vote. He also fired off a letter to his fellow lawmakers warning them not to back the bill.
Hidden in the law is “a troubling new provision that for the first time statutorily authorizes spying on U.S. citizens without legal process,” Amash told other lawmakers.
That provision allows “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of Americans’ communications without a court order or subpoena.
[/quote]
[quote]
[b]Despite Amash’s late attempt, the bill easily passed, 325-100.[/b]
[/quote]
[b]Source:[/b] [url]http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226752-gop-rep-attempted-late-bid-to-kill-spy-bill[/url]
[url]https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/812569822115759?_fb_noscript=1[/url]
Bill in question: [url]https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4681[/url]
This means all your phone calls, emails, chat logs and even documents in cloud storage are free rain with no warrants, over-site or accountability, & all the info can be shared freely between all federal and local government agencies including local police.
time to encrypt everything :v:
well shit
We police state now.
I wish there was a rating for rage just for times like these.
-snip had a case of did not read hard enough-
[QUOTE=Ayane-152;46695785]
This means all your phone calls, emails, chat logs and even documents in cloud storage are free rain with no warrants, over-site or accountability, & all the info can be shared freely between all federal and local government agencies including local police.[/QUOTE]
I HIGHLY doubt this is what anything in that bill says, so as such, I am asking you to cite exactly in the bill that this is stated.
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
Everyone in this thread read OP's statement and didnt read the bill, I guarantee it.
Wow. The summary of the bill conveniently excluded that whole section. It looks like it's literally saying they can hold private information of a US citizen as long as they don't keep it for more than 5 years. Of course, they can pretty much approve it to be held indefinitely if they feel like it.
I can't say for certain if it's explicitly legalizing them to bypass the judicial approval of obtaining this information, but it's written as though it assumes it is.
[QUOTE=Eeshton;46695830]The fuck? It's all done and ready and if it doesn't get shot down by the President... Holy fuck.
What is up with all the horrible shit happening lately? Police corruption & media hop-scotch, as a result, riots and calls for change, but yet, this shit just goes by without any coverage?[/QUOTE]
Also about the president, it won with a 2/3rds majority. but afaik the president can send it back, where they can then attempt to override it. So basically the president can buy time but that's all that's in his power
I want an unbiased news source that punctuates every reason why this bill is good and bad and states very specifically in simple detail EXACTLY what the bill does without nitpicking.
otherwise I'm going to automatically assume people are exaggerating everything and the bill isn't even slightly close to this, and that the media is lying out of their teeth that this is the "End all of all personal privacy and freedom bill" for views.
I wouldn't put it past the media to lie, considering how commonly they do.
I remember sopa or whatever it was called, the bill that supposedly let the government shut down any website at any moment, but it was ?apparently? only to an extremely SPECIFIC domain and didn't include .net/org/com/etc, making the bill effectively useless.
Literally the worst congress in American history. [sp]not just for this of course[/sp]
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46695832]I HIGHLY doubt this is what anything in that bill says, so as such, I am asking you to cite exactly in the bill that this is stated.
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
Everyone in this thread read OP's statement and didnt read the bill, I guarantee it.[/QUOTE]
I've actually been trying and I haven't found anything terribly offensive in the summary of the bill.
Hahah, in the middle of a bunch of stuff about funding and requirements for intelligence agencies in the US, this pops up:
"(Sec. 315) Expands a grant program for historically black colleges and universities to include predominantly black institutions."
It just seems so out of place.
[QUOTE=Eeshton;46695830]The fuck? It's all done and ready and if it doesn't get shot down by the President... Holy fuck.
What is up with all the horrible shit happening lately? Police corruption & media hop-scotch, as a result, riots and calls for change, but yet, this shit just goes by without any coverage?[/QUOTE]
I saw this coming when they released the CIA torture reports.
99% of the time, when congress releases something so controversial or outrageous, they are looking to pass something underneath our noses while the media is stirring over what they uncovered/released. You HAVE to look for the slight of hand.
Here is the ONLY part of the bill that references anything about the “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of any communication:
[quote]SEC. 309. PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED
COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) [B]Covered communication.--The term ``covered
communication'' means any nonpublic telephone or electronic
communication acquired without the consent of a person who is a
party to the communication, including communications in
electronic storage.
[/B]
--- (some irrelevant definitions) ---
(b) Procedures for Covered Communications.--
(1) Requirement to adopt.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act each head of an element of
the intelligence community shall adopt procedures approved by
the Attorney General for such element that ensure compliance
with the requirements of paragraph (3).
(2) Coordination and approval.--The procedures required by
paragraph (1) shall be--
(A) prepared in coordination with the Director of
National Intelligence; and
(B) approved by the Attorney General prior to
issuance.
(3) Procedures.--
(A) Application.--The procedures required by
paragraph (1) shall apply to any intelligence
collection activity not otherwise authorized by court
order (including an order or certification issued by a
court established under subsection (a) or (b) of
section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803)), subpoena, or similar
legal process that is[B] reasonably anticipated to result
in the acquisition of a covered communication to or
from a United States person and shall permit the
acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered
communications subject to the limitation in
subparagraph (B).[/B]
[/quote]
And finally, the mention of retention
[quote]munication shall not be retained in excess of 5
years, unless--
(i) the communication has been
affirmatively determined, in whole or in part,
to constitute foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence or is necessary to
understand or assess foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence;
(ii) the communication is reasonably
believed to constitute evidence of a crime and
is retained by a law enforcement agency;
(iii) the communication is enciphered or
reasonably believed to have a secret meaning;
(iv) all parties to the communication are
reasonably believed to be non-United States
persons;
(v) retention is necessary to protect
against an imminent threat to human life, in
which case both the nature of the threat and
the information to be retained shall be
reported to the congressional intelligence
committees not later than 30 days after the
date such retention is extended under this
clause;
(vi) retention is necessary for technical
assurance or compliance purposes, including a
court order or discovery obligation, in which
case access to information retained for
technical assurance or compliance purposes
shall be reported to the congressional
intelligence committees on an annual basis; or
(vii) retention for a period in excess of 5
years is approved by the head of the element of
the intelligence community responsible for such
retention, based on a determination that
retention is necessary to protect the national
security of the United States, in which case
the head of such element shall provide to the
congressional intelligence committees a written
certification describing--
(I) the reasons extended retention
is necessary to protect the national
security of the United States;
(II) the duration for which the
head of the element is authorizing
retention;
(III) the particular information to
be retained; and
(IV) the measures the element of
the intelligence community is taking to
protect the privacy interests of United
States persons or persons located
inside the United States.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46695874]Here is the ONLY part of the bill that references anything about the “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of any communication:
And finally, the mention of retention[/QUOTE]
Now I'm no fancy city government lawyer but I have a computer with an internet connection and as far as I understand it that means I'm just as smart as constitutional rights experts so let me tell you why the president is recording videos of your bathroom usage
I might be wrong but the article and the congressman's statement seems somewhat misleading. If I'm correct, the particular section of the bill dictates what you can do with the information acquired by activities that weren't authorized by court order, subpoena, or other legal processes. It doesn't seem to explicitly authorize that activity, though.
Basically it says that if you obtain "covered communication" by means other than going through the courts, regardless of the legality of the method of acquisition, you can keep it longer than 5 years as long as it meets the listed criteria.
Don't get me wrong, I am staunchly opposed to it still, because it undermines the Fourth Ammendment's exclusionary rule. I just don't think it as quite as far reaching as article and congressman is saying.
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
Wow, you guys ninja' me in the time I wrote that post.
People are so quick to believe shit written on the net, myself included. When it comes to laws passed you [I]need[/I] to read the writing. OP's source is wrong, OP is wrong. First [I]five posts[/I] in this thread are wrong.
Politics is all about the wording.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46695874]Here is the ONLY part of the bill that references anything about the “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of any communication:
And finally, the mention of retention[/QUOTE]
All that I can see the first paragraph stating is that unless otherwise approved by a court order, any intelligence agency has to have the approval of the Attorney General before accessing nonpublic communications (covered communications)?
This sucks.
Takes decades of pain and suffering for a political movement to gain traction...it takes 5 minutes and a pen to undo it all
Here's the important thing: what is the meaning of the [I]esprit du jure[/I], not merely the word of the law.
In this case, I think the law is laid out fairly simply, and doesn't lend itself to wide interpretation. That's good. However, it also isn't well-explained, and is a little vague. That's bad.
If I recall correctly, though, wasn't this passed under the pretense of being able to keep government employee records, including email, past five years after someone leaves an agency on the grounds of having crucial evidence for future investigations in counterspying, etc? That's what I remember hearing on NPR. If I remember right, this only covers communications by government employees.
(I am aware I'm using the wrong form of "Spirit" in French. I apologize.)
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46696018]People are so quick to believe shit written on the net, myself included. When it comes to laws passed you [I]need[/I] to read the writing. OP's source is wrong, OP is wrong. First [I]five posts[/I] in this thread are wrong.
Politics is all about the wording.[/QUOTE]
Looks to me like the OP was accurate. The bill clearly legitimises the NSA's operations which i might remind you involves blanket data retention of all connectivity in the US. I.e. they can store everyone's data for 5 years. And if you encrypt it they're going to store it until they crack it.
Am I the only one with the impression that we are slowly turning into what cyberpunk artists and books depicted?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46695874]Here is the ONLY part of the bill that references anything about the “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of any communication:
And finally, the mention of retention[/QUOTE]
That is literally [i]exactly[/i] what the article said it was though..?
I really don't understand what you're getting at, it's like you're trying to say that isn't what it's doing and then you quote the part that says that's exactly what it's doing.
Also why does it matter if it's ONLY one part, like that makes whatever it is okay? Oh I ONLY stole one laptop from Walmart, but I was also shopping a lot and ate at McDonalds too. It doesn't matter, it still happened. Just because it was small and hidden doesn't make it any less of a bad thing. Why do they need that information anyways?
And on top of everything else, you put “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” in parenthesis like that isn't at all what they said (it is word for word what was said in that document). But hey, whatever makes your job easier right?
[QUOTE=LSK;46696478]That is literally [i]exactly[/i] what the article said it was though..?
I really don't understand what you're getting at, it's like you're trying to say that isn't what it's doing and then you quote the part that says that's exactly what it's doing.
Also why does it matter if it's ONLY one part, like that makes whatever it is okay? Oh I ONLY stole one laptop from Walmart, but I was also shopping a lot and ate at McDonalds too. It doesn't matter, it still happened. Just because it was small and hidden doesn't make it any less of a bad thing. Why do they need that information anyways?
And on top of everything else, you put “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” in parenthesis like that isn't at all what they said (it is word for word what was said in that document). But hey, whatever makes your job easier right?[/QUOTE]
It does not mean that law enforcement gets free reign on all your private stuff.
This says that law enforcement can keep all the other shit (up to 5 years, unless the criteria is met) that happens to be recorded when they're doing surveillance that is not mentioned in the subpoena or court order.
it does not mean what the OP states:
[quote]This means all your phone calls, emails, chat logs and even documents in cloud storage are free rain with no warrants, over-site or accountability, & all the info can be shared freely between all federal and local government agencies including local police.[/quote]
nor what the source states:
[quote]“It grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American,” explained Amash[/quote]
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46696582]It does not mean that law enforcement gets free reign on all your private stuff.
This says that law enforcement can keep all the other shit (up to 5 years, unless the criteria is met) that happens to be recorded when they're doing surveillance that is not mentioned in the subpoena or court order.
it does not mean what the OP states:
nor what the source states:[/QUOTE]
It does though. It is so vague that it doesn't list everything they do not obtain, only what they do which is again so vague it can be only taken as everything.
[quote](a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered communication.--The term ``covered
communication'' means any nonpublic telephone or electronic
communication acquired without the consent of a person who is a
party to the communication, including communications in
electronic storage.[/quote]
I have nothing against law enforcement by the way, or you, but that is what it's doing and I see no good reason for it. It's just too invasive and there are no lines drawn to limit the things they are allowed gather, only how long they are allowed to keep it and that's assuming they even abide by those limitations. Our government sure didn't hold back on torture, I think I can safely say privacy isn't even a concern for them at all. You don't find these things worrying or at the very least a bit concerning? Where will it go from this point onward?
I'm not someone who has it out for the government but they have been fucking up for years now. Just look at the recent headlines, "CIA Torture", "The debt ceiling problem is coming up AGAIN (remember how it went last year?)", and now they legally have the power to "the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of non-public electronic communications". It's not good, and it hasn't been for a while. I'm just concerned, I really wish those in charge would get their heads together and focus on everything that is wrong instead of struggling to agree on something that will cause yet another government shutdown or even worse if left undecided just because they can't get along, and that is only one of many problems we face today. Now they can access everything I do electronically, private or not, just because? Come on now. That doesn't solve a damn thing.
Ah yes, spying on and invading the privacy of[I] 242 million individual adults![/I]
Except they won't do that. Even assigning all 50,000 NSA workers with a group of people from this population would still be over 4800 people per employee to keep track of.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;46696682]Ah yes, spying on and invading the privacy of[I] 242 million individual adults![/I]
Except they won't do that. Even assigning all 50,000 NSA workers with a group of people from this population would still be over 4800 people per employee to keep track of.[/QUOTE]
That's not how the agency works. They can store massive amounts of data and search through it, it's called data mining. It's used for a variety of different scenarios and has been for years now.
They don't sit at a computer all day and wait for someone to do something that doesn't even make sense.
[QUOTE=LSK;46696690]That's not how the agency works. They can store massive amounts of data and search through it, it's called data mining. It's used for a variety of different scenarios and has been for years now.
They don't sit at a computer all day and wait for someone to do something that doesn't even make sense.[/QUOTE]
Which for every day that passes will be piles and piles of more information from all those 242 million people.
And even then I have no idea what they would do with this information.
I don't see why they would care about the average joe and his browsing history or that one time he stole some candy when he was 14. If they use this stuff, logically it'll be to find wanted terrorists, murderers, rapists and so forth.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;46696700]Which for every day that passes will be piles and piles of more information from all those 242 million people.
And even then [b]I have no idea what they would do with this information.[/b]
I don't see why they would care about the average joe and his browsing history or that one time he stole some candy when he was 14. If they use this stuff, logically it'll be to find wanted terrorists, murderers, rapists and so forth.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't seem like a problem?
They may not care, but why should they have access to it in the first place? It's private for a reason, even if they will most likely never ever look at it, if they can it isn't private. It's the principle of the whole thing. It's weird knowing that people are trying to document everything I've ever done, and what if someone gets access to it, or an employee goes rogue and releases as much as they possibly can (It's not like that hasn't happened before)?
The bad scenarios outweigh the good, no matter how seemingly minuscule and unlikely. If anything in the end it's just a waste of money that could be spent on something far more beneficial for our country.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.